Terri Schiavo

[John Self]

A terrible, personal family tragedy has turned into an opportunity to criticise George W Bush - and we never pass those up - but you know what? As always, he deserves it.

If you've missed the story in the news over the last week, it concerns Terri Schiavo, a Florida woman who has been in what doctors consider a persistent vegetative state (though she's not unconscious) since 1990, when she suffered heart failure thought to have been the result of an eating disorder. She has to be kept alive by a feeding tube into her stomach. Doctors agree that she has no sensation or responsiveness and that there is no prospect of recovery.

Her husband, her legal guardian, wants the feeding tube to be removed so that she can be allowed to die instead of, in his view, persisting in this state of existence-but-not-life, indefinitely and against what he would consider to be her wishes. Indeed the tube has been removed, but because Terri will survive for a couple of weeks even in its absence, that gives time for Bush to put his prehensile foot in.

Terri's parents want the tube to be reinstated, but as they're not her legal guardian they can't insist on this. Their motives are not in question - who would put themselves in their shoes? - but Bush's are. First his brother Jeb got in on the act, by getting Florida's lower house to pass a law in 2003 when the tube was first removed - "Terri's law," just in case the exploitative aspect wasn't obvious - for it to be reinstated. Naturally the Florida Supreme Court struck the law down, and this has led to the present situation. George Bush then cut short his holiday this week to come back and sign a new law - the President! hasn't he ever heard that hard cases make bad law? - to enable the matter to be referred to court again. And so it has - and tonight the Supreme Court judge ruled once more that the tube should not be reinstated.

All in all, the matter has been before the courts five times, and on each of those occasions the court has ruled in favour of the husband's right to have the tube removed to allow Terri to die. And this is the crucial point: whenever the matter is decided based on the evidence (and all the evidence points one way: Terri has no life to speak of and never will), it's consistent with allowing her to die. Only when the Shrub family pops up does the see-saw go in the other direction.

Politicians must never be allowed to decide cases like this. Judges, even through their personal feelings, are swayed by the evidence and base their decisions in the law. Politicians have only one ambition - getting re-elected (or in G.W. Bush's case, getting his party re-elected) - and this leads them to make stupid, populist and easy-way-out decisions. This is why, too, it was so important for the British government's terrorism bill to be challenged - successfully - to remove the notion that ministers and not judges would decide on the detention or house arrest of suspected terrorists. To say it again: politicians are only interested in popularity. They are not interested in justice (unless it coincidentally makes them popular).

The other repellent aspect of the case is how it has been hijacked by right-to-life Christian fundamentalist nuts, who care only about the existence of life, not its quality. One was heard to comment on the news that it was wrong for Terri's husband and the doctors to "play God" by removing the feeding tube. Of course, playing God was when humans put the feeding tube in to begin with. Left to God, she'd be long dead.

[Maggie]

Hear ! Hear ! John

This is a great example of Democracy run amok ! Probably even tops the Michael Jackson trial !

What a circus this country has made of everything. Now this ! :cry:

I believe that the far right saw this as a way to appease the fundamental Christians and pro lifers. As far as I know, as of yet, Bush has done nothing he had promised them .

The judge was picked randomly by computer. Can't recall his name but it turned out that he is a Democrat appointed by Clinton. He saw no need to reinstate the feeding tube.



Maggie

[John Self]

A White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, has now given a response to the judge's ruling, saying, "We would have preferred a different ruling." Pardon my eye-popping, spitting, splenetic rage, but how fucking dare he? For the president to admit in this way that he intervened not to ensure that justice was done, but to ensure that his personal preference of a result was obtained, is a bottomlessly shameful outrage, and compounds his sins thousandfold.

And I can't put it any more mildly than that.

[bakunin_the_cat]

At least it looks like sanity has prevailed despite the best efforts of the W clan. While judges still have some integrity and the power to overrule the government there may still be some hope for us all. That said it does worry me the fact that judges are appointed by politicians not by more senior judges. What's to stop Bush gradually populating the judiciary with his cronies to avoid embarrassing climbdowns like this in the future?

[John Self]

It's not over yet. The Schindler (Terri's maiden name) family's appeal against the federal judge's ruling was rejected by an appeal court, 2-1. But as always, there are further channels of appeal open to them. The US Supreme Court, for example, is so corrupt with right-wing swivel-eyed bigots that they could conceivably try to find a way to allow the appeal in the end, against all the evidence.

[amner]

It seems that this is not a continuance of life, but a prolonging of death. I'm sure the Christian Right are thoroughly enjoying their moment in the sun over this, and kicking around big fat moralistic opinions is as good a way as any to score political points, but do any of these people consider the day-to-day year-to-year care that it must have taken to get to this point since Mrs Schiavo collapsed in 1990? I doubt it.

[HP]

There's another issue lurking here, too. Let's assume she will be allowed to die. Is it right, having made that decision, to then allow her to starve to death? Apparently, this could take ten to fourteen days. Would you do that to a dog?

My mother-in-law contracted a form of dementia in her fifties - similar to Alzheimer's. At the point where she had become little more than a vegetable, the doctors made the discovery that regular doses of aspirin could halt any further mini-infarctions, which had till then all but destroyed her brain. From there on she was given aspirin on a daily basis and so was held in a 'permanent vegetative state' for over fifteen years. When, at last, it was decided she had suffered enough, and after much legal wrangling and every authority out passing the buck for obvious reasons, the decision was taken to stop administering any form of medication. By this time she was prone to epileptic seizures, had difficulty in breathing, and was fed - like the American woman - by tube. Due to her breathing difficulties, and without any medication, she soon contracted pneumonia. Her final weeks - not days - were spent in ever-increasing epileptic fits, and gasping for breath.

If a decision is made to allow someone to die, they should at the very least be awarded some compassion and their passing made swift and painless. Preserving life when there is a glimmer of hope is one thing; prolonging the dying process when there is absolutely none, is quite another.

[Jerkass]

What's to stop Bush gradually populating the judiciary with his cronies to avoid embarrassing climbdowns like this in the future?

the fact that he can only be in office for another 3.75 years

[John Self]

A fair point Honey, and this I suppose takes us into the area of euthanasia, but in this case it's accepted by the medical personnel that Terri Schiavo has no pain sensation so she will not feel any discomfort as she dies.

[amner]

he can only be in office for another 3.75 years

So there is some good news today then?

[Maggie]

My Mom just died. She had cancer but the real reason she died was because she chose to stop eating.

Actually, the choice to stop feeding our bodies for reasons such as illness or age, has been going on for a long time.

Native tribe members who were old or infirm did not eat the food that could be used to sustain the young. They would literally stave to death before they would become a burden to the rest of the tribe.

They are not letting Terry Schrivo lay there in total discomfort. Her mouth will be kept moist. I'm sure if she were to appear to be uncomfortable they will give her something to make her comfortable. (although I understand that she doesn't have the ability to feel pain)

The media, along with Terry's parents, are making it seem as if she will be in agony..........this is not so.

My Mom was in Hospice care.............the priority is the patients comfort. Along with complying with the patient's wishes. This is not a barbaric process.

I get the feeling that Shrivo's mother wants to have a perpetual "baby".
She seems a bit "off" to me. I couldn't watch my daughter live like that.
This is only MHO of course.

Maggie

P.S. 3.75 years is TOO LONG !

[HP]

While it can only be good news to hear that Terri Schrivo will not suffer (according to her doctors, anyway, and who are we to gain say them) - the decision to remove that feeding tube still highlights the need for some serious re-thinking on the issue of euthanasia. And political parties the world over don't want to touch such a hot potato as it might lose 'em votes. Why else the perennial skirting around the issue? I don't want to get heavy here, but the decision to let her starve and dehydrate to death is still a damned cowardly one. If you've reached the decision to let the woman die, then why not bring that end swiftly - and it goes without saying - painlessly - beyond all shadow of a doubt? Your mother - like my mother was treated kindly and with compassion in her final days, but my husband's mother wasn't, because the medical profession in her case, wouldn't sanction removal of her feeding tube, but did sanction the withdrawal of medicine. Many hospices do sterling work with the dying and cannot be faulted, but they are not helped by the law as it stands. And I'm sorry, but once you get the 'only God has the right to take life' zealots interfering in the lives and deaths of those who were staunchly atheist throughout, logic and compassion go out the window.

[Maggie]

Honey,
I agree with you 100%. For some odd reason humanity seems to feel that God stands behind every life saving measure taken and condems anything that hints at euthanasia. I guess this isn't surprising, in that we don't treat the event of death as part of life.

In some cultures (particularly older ones ) death was many things besides an end. It was sometimes an honor and it was inevitable. The very structure of modern society seems to deny the existance of death and all types of measures are taken to starve off the inevitable.

When I worked in a hospital, I had many "discussions" with physicians around this subject. My question was always the same......how is it we can use our great medical and technical knowledge in only one direction. If we can heal people, improve the qualitiy of lives and keep those who would have died alive, why can't we use that same knowledge to allow people to die in easier ways ?? Never got a clear answer on this. Seems it always boiled down to God's will. I always wondered how so many people seem to have a direct line to God. They certainly seem to know just exactly how He plans things. Somewhere along the way God said it was O.K. to INSERT a tube but...........one must NEVER, under any circumstances REMOVE a tube.

Anyway, this all makes the existance of a Living Will mandatory ! I have a friend who said that she is going to have her's tattoed on her ass. That way there will not be any questions, should she not be able to respond.

Maggie

[HP]

I have a friend who said that she is going to have her's tattoed on her ass. That way there will not be any questions, should she not be able to respond.

Maggie .... You have made my day! ...... :lol:

[John Self]

The Schindler family have now petitioned the Supreme Court to hear their case (although they have refused twice before), having already asked the full federal appeals court to re-hear yesterday's rejected appeal - which application was itself rejected 10-2.

Unbelievably, Florida senate tried (and thankfully failed) to pass a law prohibiting the removal of feeding from patients unless they had their consent to do so in writing. This is not only a further example of the government (well, the Shrubs) interfering in personal family matters, but a ridiculously misconceived notion. For the law to apply to the Schiavo case, it would have to be retrospective - as the feeding tube has already been removed - and if it was retrospective, then every doctor who has removed feeding from a comatose or PVS patient in the history of the state would be open to prosecution.

Terri's husband must be wishing he'd put a pillow over the poor woman's face years ago and spared her this undignified misery.

[tricia]

i think the real issue here is what terri wants. both sides, (her husband and her parents), have claimed that before her illness, at different times, terri made her opinions on this matter clear. i think they both need to believe they are fighting for terri's rights. however no matter what age your child is, could anyone bear to watch them starve to death?

as for the idea that terri will not notice the pain and discomfort of dying in this manner, i find that absurd. just because she cannot communicate her feelings, does not mean she does not experience them.

i agree that the process of dying needs to be closley examined. people should have the right to die in as dignified and comfortable a way as possible. obviously this is not by the withholding of food and fluids.

[m.]

I find all this very disturbing. Maybe it's wishful thinking on my part but if the doctors say Terry won't suffer dying this way, I accept their opinion. After all we'll never really know about things like that. And to my mind, it has little if anything to do with euthanasia - it's just letting things happen.

[John Self]

The Supreme Court has refused to get involved again, as expected. Whether this is the end of the matter who knows - Jeb Bush was last heard saying they were looking at some way of getting Terri into the custody of the state. How grotesque.

[Maggie]

Rev. Jesse Jackson is flying to Shiavo's bedside. :roll:


Maggie

[HP]

Well that should see her off pdq.

[Maggie]

:lol:

Honey,
So now we are even........you made my day !


Maggie

[Maggie]

Terri Schiavo died this morning.



Maggie

[Jerkass]

from the BBC today:

"We promised the Schindler family that we will not let Terri die in vain," [Senior House Republican] Mr DeLay said.

"We will look at an arrogant, out-of-control, unaccountable judiciary that thumbed their nose at Congress and the president."

****

"Yes," Mr. DeLay continued, "it's almost like the judiciary thinks it's an independent branch of government or something."

[I added that last bit]

I wonder if Congressmen should be forced to take Basic American Civics classes before taking office. I think the one I took in fifth grade at age 10 might cover it.

[Colyngbourne]

Someone is already making some more money out of this situation by selling bumper stickers for $27 to "Remember Terri" on the American Family Association site.

[tricia]

Terri Schiavo's husband refused to be at her bedside when she died and her family were asked to leave 15 mins before she died.

no winners in that situation, however as her husband fought so hard to let her die, imho the least he could have done was to be there with her.

[Maggie]

Tricia,

Where did you hear that from ?? Terri's husband held her while she died. I believe Mr Shiavo's lawyer used the term "cradled" her. He did not let the family in because Terri's brother would not leave the room earlier that morning when the Hospice workers needed to tend to her. He became verbally abusive to the workers. The Hospice personel needed to have police intervention. When they called Mr Shiavo to tell him that she was near death, they asked if he would allow her family in but they advised that a police officer be present. Michael Shiavo said he did not want a policeman at her bedside when she died. He then said that if that was the case he would not let them in. He did not want harsh words or actions during her last moments.

Mr Shiavo's lawyer was present, as was Michael Shiavo's mother and his brother.

Terri's family arrived shortly after she died. Terri's mom had refused to see her since Easter. She didn't want to see her "little girl that way"

Michael Shiavo's lawyer gave a news conference right after she died. He also answered questions for a bout 45 minutes. He was very patient and he was also very well spoken. He did not come across as hostile in the least. The only question he would not answer was when someone asked him what Michael's last words were to his wife. He said that they were far to personal and they were between Michael and Terri.
The lawyer stated that Michael was exhausted and emotionally drained.

Later that evening Michael Shiavo's brother gave an interview. He basically said the same thing as the lawyer did. He also said that Terri was loved by the entire Shiavo family.

Maggie

[epsilon minus]

The US Supreme Court, for example, is so corrupt with right-wing swivel-eyed bigots Yeah, like the PC Liberal-Left is so much better.

All politicians and judges are theives and liars. There's hardly a one of them who wouldn't crawl over his father's corpse to rape his mother to stay in power.