Terri Shaivo thread

[JUGGERNAUT]

I don't know if this is true but since some of you have mentioned a funeral I've heard that Michael already secured the rights to cremate her after her death.

 

Now again another legal door opens. If Terri dies, does Congress have the right to order an autopsy or delay the burial in light of the subpeona that was issued? I'm guessing we will cross that path when we come to it.

 

Again her family & church friends are against the cremation & prefer a traditional burial. But since Michael is the custodian he decides. You would think out of respect & honor to his in-laws & his dearly departed wife he would allow them that little bit of dignity.

Edited March 22, 2005 by JUGGERNAUT

[Queen Prawn]

What was her request? My parents want cremation, but my mom's family isn't happy about it.

 

People keep talking about what he wants and what her mom and dad wants. What did she say she wanted?

 

Brian and I have already talked about this and know what the other wants (he wants a funeral and I want my body donated to science and then have a memorial with lots of Queen music and laughter). To be honest, my parents knew this as well going back some time. Someone has to know what she wanted.

[JUGGERNAUT]

What was her request?  My parents want cremation, but my mom's family isn't happy about it. 

 

People keep talking about what he wants and what her mom and dad wants.  What did she say she wanted? 

 

Brian and I have already talked about this and know what the other wants (he wants a funeral and I want my body donated to science and then have a memorial with lots of Queen music and laughter).  To be honest, my parents knew this as well going back some time.  Someone has to know what she wanted.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's the whole problem. She didn't have a living will so no one knows what she wants.

We have the testimony of her family & friends from the parish she attended vs Michael's testimony & his friends.

 

In any case Michael doesn't have to prove that she desired cremation. Once he obtained executor status over her life the rest is history.

[Queen Prawn]

I understand that as guardian he has the right to decide (I already told Brian that if he doesn't carry out my wishes when I pass, I will make sure to haunt his ass 'til he does).

 

I just can't believe that whatever this lady said she wanted isn't being carried out.

 

I am prepared to carry out my parents' wishes even if I don't agree/like them. Why take that away from someone?

[Rex Kickass]

I can certainly understand that view, in fact I agree that is the worse case scenario. But notice there is not harm to the patient. He mentions no benefit. So worse case there is no benefit to her in keeping her alive. What is the worse case scenario to standing by and allowing her to die?

 

Again, what is the benefit to Terri in allowing her to die?

What is the potential harm in allowing her to die?

 

I have yet to hear anyone describe a benefit to Terri in allowing her to die?

If there is no benefit, but a slim to no chance of a brilliant and miraculous upside in keeping her alive, isn't the safest route choosing life? Don't we want our government to choose life for it's citizens?

 

If death is not the end, I see a benefit to this. Assuming that she said that she didn't want to be kept on life support in this kind of situation, which her husband and six levels of judicial review determined, her wishes would finally be honored.

 

And this is about her, right? And her right to life and her right to die?

 

Or maybe this isn't about life at all. Or maybe there'd still be a baby alive in Houston after the hospital took her off life support, against her parents wishes, because the money ran out.

[JUGGERNAUT]

If death is not the end, I see a benefit to this. Assuming that she said that she didn't want to be kept on life support in this kind of situation, which her husband and six levels of judicial review determined, her wishes would finally be honored.

 

And this is about her, right? And her right to life and her right to die?

 

Or maybe this isn't about life at all. Or maybe there'd still be a baby alive in Houston after the hospital took her off life support, against her parents wishes, because the money ran out.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

There are different levels of life support. You can set up a feeding tube solution at a low cost for hospice care. Much cheaper than in-hospital stay. The kind the baby needed whas substantially more. I agree that life should not come with the burden of meeting a doctor's cost. If the baby is a citizen the government should insure it's life at any cost.

[JUGGERNAUT]

I also learned today that they are giving her morphine through an iv. That would make sense with respect to the pain killer reference I posted earlier.

 

If this is true they've already consider her suffering & we can rule out #2

in the poll.

[jackie hayes]

If I were representing the Schiavo's that would be my case.  Not that her religious rights were violated but rather her religious practice was ignored in determining her will of life.  The appeal would be based on testimony that evidence pertaining to her religious practice was not admitted by the court in defense of her right to life.  This includes testimony of church members that she expressed a right to live as well as pro-life rallies her & her family took part in.  It's common knowledge that those who participate in pro-life rallies do not support right-to-die as a living will choice.

You mean the Schindlers, right? Sorry, I do not accept religious 'usuals' as expressed beliefs. I've known too many Catholics who are willing to openly defy JPII on matters of orthodoxy to believe that religious beliefs are true personal beliefs.

 

Her husband should have the final say. If you don't like the law, fine, change it. But until then, this is a pure travesty.

 

Who is harmed by keeping her (or "her") alive? She is, or her memory is, if she wanted it otherwise. And Tex -- "Most people would at least give a stray dog a bowl of water" -- although I support euthanasia, it's not an option here. (Welcome back from the far right, btw.)

[JUGGERNAUT]

You mean the Schindlers, right?  Sorry, I do not accept religious 'usuals' as expressed beliefs.  I've known too many Catholics who are willing to openly defy JPII on matters of orthodoxy to believe that religious beliefs are true personal beliefs.

 

Her husband should have the final say.  If you don't like the law, fine, change it.  But until then, this is a pure travesty.

 

Who is harmed by keeping her (or "her") alive?  She is, or her memory is, if she wanted it otherwise.  And Tex -- "Most people would at least give a stray dog a bowl of water" -- although I support euthanasia, it's not an option here.  (Welcome back from the far right, btw.)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes. My mistake. Her maiden name is Schindler. What do you mean by reliigous "usuals'? There is no law that says her husband should have the final say. The law states that in the absence of a living will it is up to the courts to decide upon a guardian. It is that process that is being called into question. The court would not allow a lot of testimony & audio/video evidence that would have supported her choosing her right to life. That testimony & a/v evidence supported her religious practice as a Catholic. They ignored essentially all evidence pertaining to that aspect of her life.

 

This is a very complex case because so much time has passed. He's legally her husband because he never divorced her but as Tex said he's fathered another woman's child & is living & sleeping with her. Is that not ground's for divorce?

Are we as a society going to say it's ok to sleep around on people like Terri because

she can't contest? Should that right pass down to her parents when she is unable?

 

As always when studying a legal problem let's generalize it a bit. Suppose spouse A is caught cheating by spouse B & in the process B suffers a mental breakdown & is declared mentally incompetent by the courts with spouse A assigned as her guardian.

Spouse A then decides to father children & live/sleep with his girlfriend. Does spouse B have any legal recourse to divorce spouse A? Should s/he?

 

I would think most of us would say yes. That recourse is only going to come from her family. The courts should recognize this. The parents of spouse B should have the legal recourse to sue for divorce on behalf of their child. it goes w/out saying that the transfer of guardianship should be included in the process.

 

If this recourse had been available to the Schindler's this case would have been over a long time ago. Michael would have been removed from the process as a result of the divorce. With respect to the Church the marriage would be annulled. In my opinion that's where the FL legislature errored in their efforts to save Terri. They should have passed a law facilitating the means for the Schindlers to sue Michael for Terri's divorce on the grounds of infidelity. They should have signed into law that when that occurs guardianship is transferred to the state until the divorce is settled.

At which time it would then transfer to the party who sued for divorce on her behalf.

[jackie hayes]

Yes. My mistake.  Her maiden name is Schindler.  What do you mean by reliigous "usuals'?  There is no law that says her husband should have the final say.  The law states that in the absence of a living will it is up to the courts to decide upon a guardian.  It is that process that is being called into question.  The court would not allow a lot of testimony & audio/video evidence that would have supported her choosing her right to life.  That testimony & a/v evidence supported her religious practice as a Catholic.  They ignored essentially all evidence pertaining to that aspect of her life.

 

This is a very complex case because so much time has passed.  He's legally her husband because he never divorced her but as Tex said he's fathered another woman's child & is living & sleeping with her.  Is that not ground's for divorce?

Are we as a society going to say it's ok to sleep around on people like Terri because

she can't contest?  Should that right pass down to her parents when she is unable?

 

As always when studying a legal problem let's generalize it a bit.  Suppose spouse A is caught cheating by spouse B & in the process B suffers a mental breakdown & is declared mentally incompetent by the courts with spouse A assigned as her guardian.

Spouse A then decides to father children & live/sleep with his girlfriend.  Does spouse B have any legal recourse to divorce spouse A? Should s/he? 

 

I would think most of us would say yes.  That recourse is only going to come from her family.  The courts should recognize this.  The parents of spouse B should have the legal recourse to sue for divorce on behalf of their child.  it goes w/out saying that the transfer of guardianship should be included in the process.

 

If this recourse had been available to the Schindler's this case would have been over a long time ago.  Michael would have been removed from the process as a result of the divorce.  With respect to the Church the marriage would be annulled.  In my opinion that's where the FL legislature errored in their efforts to save Terri.  They should have passed a law facilitating the means for the Schindlers to sue Michael for Terri's divorce on the grounds of infidelity.  They should have signed into law that when that occurs guardianship is transferred to the state until the divorce is settled.

At which time it would then transfer to the party who sued for divorce on her behalf.

Uh, no. Other people should not be able to request a divorce in your stead. I suppose they could then marry her off to someone they liked better, too?

 

Whittemore denied the request to reinsert the feeding tube. Reuters link.

[southsider2k5]

REALLY BAD JOKE alert.... PLEASE AVOID IF YOU ARE EASILY OFFENDED!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What's the hardest part about eating a vegetable? Getting her out of the wheelchair.

 

 

[punches 3rd class ticket to hell]

[Texsox]

If death is not the end, I see a benefit to this. Assuming that she said that she didn't want to be kept on life support in this kind of situation, which her husband and six levels of judicial review determined, her wishes would finally be honored.

 

And this is about her, right? And her right to life and her right to die?

 

Or maybe this isn't about life at all. Or maybe there'd still be a baby alive in Houston after the hospital took her off life support, against her parents wishes, because the money ran out.

 

If we were certain those were her wishes, I would agree 100% and be writing that she should be euthanized in a painless manner, instead of slowly dehydrated. But the only person who will benefit from her death, is the same person who is pushing for her to die. If he wasn't involved in this, there would be no controversy.

 

Keeping her alive, at worse, provides no benefit to Terri. Killing her, at worse, kills a human being. We should always error on the side of caution.

 

As a parent I can not imagine the terror of having someone killing your baby. Especially when that someone is living in a new home with his common law wife and children. The guy has moved on. Let the parents care for their child. They raised her and have much more invested than he does.

 

Interesting point regarding divorce Juggernaut. I assume that Florida is a no fault state. I wonder if this was in a state where you must have grounds, if that could have happened. I still can not agree with that process. There are some people **cough cough Hillary cough cough* who do not seem to mind their spouses sleeping around. Sweet irony then of conservatives pushing for divorce.

Edited March 22, 2005 by Texsox

[Rex Kickass]

So first it was about the money.

Then he abused her.

Then he denied her care.

Now he sleeps around on her.

 

Is it me, or is every stop being pulled out to demonize this guy? And should someone have to live a life of paralysis indefinitely because his wife is brain dead? He waited 8 years before he asked to have the feeding tube removed. Eight years is a long enough time to establish whether or not there is hope. Seven levels of judicial review have now agreed with Michael Schiavo that her wishes should be honored. The parents don't.

[Texsox]

So first it was about the money.

Then he abused her.

Then he denied her care.

Now he sleeps around on her.

 

Is it me, or is every stop being pulled out to demonize this guy? And should someone have to live a life of paralysis indefinitely because his wife is brain dead? He waited 8 years before he asked to have the feeding tube removed. Eight years is a long enough time to establish whether or not there is hope. Seven levels of judicial review have now agreed with Michael Schiavo that her wishes should be honored. The parents don't.

 

It was all those things. To further the conversation, it doesn't make sense to keep rehashing. I do not think it is possible to examine *his* wishes, without examining his motivation. Remember the basic situation here is he wants her dead. If he wasn't involved, none of this would be going on. The courts are defending his wishes as her guardian. There is no writen record of her wishes, only the word of a guy who would like her dead. Let's say a miracle happens and she sits up. Who does he live with? His wife or his girlfriend and kids? He should not be making this decision.

 

Keeping her alive, at worse, is no benefit to her; at best spares her life.

 

Killing her at worse, kills a human and at best ??

[Soxy]

Being at airports all day yesterday, I was lucky enough to watch the media feeding frenzy around this.

 

My take on this is that Ms. Schaivo really died probably at least 10 years ago. I like to think that we are more than just breathing and blinking (stuff that is controlled by the allocortex, the most unevolved part of our brain). Without the cerebral cortex (neocortex, whatever you call it) the person she once was is gone. This isn't like a stroke or a brain lesion. I understand the concern that she's going to be killed--but medically (and I think spiritually) she's been dead a long time. And now all that's left is fighting over how long to keep her body around.

[Steff]

Being at airports all day yesterday, I was lucky enough to watch the media feeding frenzy around this.

 

My take on this is that Ms. Schaivo really died probably at least 10 years ago. I like to think that we are more than just breathing and blinking (stuff that is controlled by the allocortex, the most unevolved part of our brain). Without the cerebral cortex (neocortex, whatever you call it) the person she once was is gone. This isn't like a stroke or a brain lesion. I understand the concern that she's going to be killed--but medically (and I think spiritually) she's been dead a long time. And now all that's left is fighting over how long to keep her body around.

 

 

I completely agree with you Soxy.

[EvilJester99]

My thought on this is the husband would probably know her thoughts and wishes in this regard more so than her parents. Most couple at least discuss this issue and most people wouldn't with their family. I think its terrible she is suffering and the heartache is there for all but sometimes you just have to let go. This may be terribly insensitive but I have been accused of that b4 but what she needs is pillow therapy or morphine under the tongue to quicken her demise...its more humane than to have her live her life like she currently is or to starve to death. Its just my thoughts on it in which I am sure most won't agree with but hey...

[Texsox]

Being at airports all day yesterday, I was lucky enough to watch the media feeding frenzy around this.

 

My take on this is that Ms. Schaivo really died probably at least 10 years ago. I like to think that we are more than just breathing and blinking (stuff that is controlled by the allocortex, the most unevolved part of our brain). Without the cerebral cortex (neocortex, whatever you call it) the person she once was is gone. This isn't like a stroke or a brain lesion. I understand the concern that she's going to be killed--but medically (and I think spiritually) she's been dead a long time. And now all that's left is fighting over how long to keep her body around.

 

As I examine this, I find myself agreeing with all of your premises, but not the conclusion. The slippery slope we would be putting ourselves on is placing a value on a human life based on IQ, personality, memory, brain function, etc. I do not see that as a prudent path for our, or any civilization, to take. A flat lined brain is one thing, but she is not brain dead as we currently believe that to mean.

 

As I have discussed this with people. Those that have kids are far more likely to side with the parents, those without kids, more likely to side with the husband.

[Steff]

A flat lined brain is one thing, but she is not brain dead as we currently believe that to mean.

 

 

Her brain is liquified. There is no activity.

[southsider2k5]

As I examine this, I find myself agreeing with all of your premises, but not the conclusion. The slippery slope we would be putting ourselves on is placing a value on a human life based on IQ, personality, memory, brain function, etc. I do not see that as a prudent path for our, or any civilization, to take. A flat lined brain is one thing, but she is not brain dead as we currently believe that to mean.

 

As I have discussed this with people. Those that have kids are far more likely to side with the parents, those without kids, more likely to side with the husband.

 

Ah the slippery slope makes its debut. Its amazing how prevelant this becomes in our legal system. By banning a cruel type of abortion procedure, it is a slippery slope to banning all abortions. By banning fully automatic guns, it is a slippery slope to the government taking all of our guns. By trying to install standards for television, it is a slippery slope to the government controlling media.

 

There is always someone who wants to eskew common sense for extremism, and it ends up hurting the wide majority of the country who can see the difference between a situation like Schaivo and a situtation like China where kids are killed for their sex.

[sec159row2]

not sure if this was covered..... the religious angle... I'm a church-going catholic, but I'm having trouble with the vatican getting involved. The vatican advocates AGAINST artificial insemination(sp?), AGAINST artificial birth control (condoms and such). The vatican states no one can decide who dies. enter terri schaivo... life support is Ok, artificially keeping her alive, and they claim the power to say "put the tube in" ... why not remove the tube and let nature take it's course???? if God ( or whatever you call your divine being) wants her to live she will. otherwise......

 

I'm not sure if I complete my argument, but I'm just "concerned" how the vatican says no to some things artificial, yet says other things artificial are OK....

 

all artificial or nothing.....

[Rex Kickass]

http://www.sptimes.com/2005/03/20/Tampabay...me_down__.shtml

[JUGGERNAUT]

I'm curious about some of the answers. Are those who are condoning his right to guardianship also condoning his infidelity? Do you even consider his actions outside of his marriage to Terri infidelity?

 

If you could take a step into the circle of ethical/moral people for a minute does it not make sense to you that if a spouse reaches a decision that he can no longer live without sex that the most ethical & moral thing to do in this case would have been to divorce Terri BEFORE he began wooing another woman?

 

For those who are married w or w/out kids place yourself in Michael's position. Would you divorce your spouse before starting a relationship with a new person or would you just moralize it was ok for you to commit adultery in that case?

 

I read the poll. A little less than 60% favor Terri dying. I wonder how many of those polled even know he's been commiting adultery behind Terri's back even before the court appointed doctors concluded she was in a persistent vegetative state. I wonder how many might think twice if they knew that.

[Steff]

What does who he is sleeping with have to do with her dying if that's what she wanted..? Good grief..

[Queen Prawn]

I completely agree with you Soxy.

 

Makes three of us.