Posted on 07/13/2008 10:44:43 AM PDT by wagglebee
Michael is the widower of Theresa Marie Schindler “Terri” Schiavo, who died on March 31, 2005, after being judicially executed—as her husband wanted.
She had collapsed on February 25, 1990, having experienced a heart attack that caused respiratory and cardiac arrest, which resulted in extensive brain damage. She was diagnosed by several doctors to be in PVS—persistent vegetative state. She was placed in—and brought out of—several hospitals for 15 years.
In 1998, Michael, her husband and guardian, petitioned a Florida Court to remove her feeding tube. Robert and Mary Schindler, her parents, opposed the petition. They claimed that she was conscious and responded to their cooing and kissing. They saw her pucker her lips to kiss them back and could see that she was attempting to speak to them.
The court, placing itself in Terri’s place, ruled that if she could only speak she would tell everyone that she did not want to be kept alive. For seven years the legal controversy—between Michael and Terri’s parents—became an international affair. Politicians, expert doctors, pro-life and disabled-persons’ advocates debated with pro-euthanasia advocates, sometimes appearing on CNN, BBC and other globally shown TV programs.
Would you have petitioned the court to shut off her life-support system as Michael Schiavo did?
I wouldn’t.
Eulana Englaro of Milan
Something like the Terri Schindler Schiavo case is now rocking Italy.
This time it’s the father of a Milanese 37-year-old woman, Eulana Englaro, who asked the court for authorization to kill his daughter by removing her feeding tube. His request was granted.
Eulana has been in a coma, the result of a car collision, since 1992. She was 16. Her skull was smashed, her neck broken. Doctors thought she would soon be dead but she was breathing on her own less than three months later.
Italian bioethical and medical associations have criticized the Milan court’s decision. They call the decision a positive act of euthanasia and not merely one to stop an unnecessary and disproportionate treatment to keep her artificially alive.
Eulana will suffer a long and painful death—unless her death is hastened by large doses of morphine, which would then be even more active euthanasia.
The Scienza e Vita (Science and Life) association bitterly criticized the court for deciding to legitimize the killing of a human being by “depriving her of the most elemental things: nourishment and hydration.” It described the case as one in which “the community of healthy people has decided to stop taking care of a human being in a state of the greatest frailty and dependence, condemning her to an atrocious death by hunger and thirst.”
Scienza e Vita worries that the Milan court has set a legal precedent that will start a wave of petitions from relatives tired of caring for their former loved ones whom they now want to die because they have become helpless.
The Vatican paper L’Osservatore Romano published an article by Adriano Pessina, director of the Bioethics Athenaeum of the Sacro Cuore (Sacred Heart) Catholic University. He writes that “an ordinary treatment [nourishment and hydration] is being suspended following a court decision that has no clinical basis.”
The decision, Pessina explains, was based on the alleged desire of Eulana not to live in these circumstances and the alleged power of life and death in the hands of her father and guardian. But by Italian law, the Bioethics Athenaeum director writes, the “biological last will and testament” does not exist. So the court was forced to construct a case to indirectly prove its relevance.
As to the perceived power of a guardian to decide on the life and death of a ward, Pessina writes that the existence of that power is debatable. In fact a guardian’s duty is to act in the best interest of the person entrusted to him. “Decisions on a person’s life should be limited, and every citizen should be guaranteed that the value of his life will not be determined by a particular anthropological idea,” the Bioethics expert states.
Pessina further writes: “It isn’t necessary to take recourse to a religious concept of life, or to deny the legal and moral possibility of rejecting disproportionate treatments to dissent from this decision: Suffice it to stress that, in Eulana’s case, imposed in fact is the interruption of a long process of care, made up of attention, loving dedication and respect for her personal dignity, which the protagonists of the appeal themselves have always recognized.”
“The subject of consciousness is very delicate to address,” he adds. “However, if Eulana is truly not conscious of herself, then she doesn’t suffer, and it is hard to understand why the state must condemn her to death—unless it is because of an obstinate ideological plan of a state that calls itself lay and should be methodologically foreign to all religious confessions.”
Doctors have observed that Eulana has not been certified to be brain dead. They say it is incorrect to diagnose that she is, like Terri Schiavo, in “persistent or permanent vegetative state” because it has not been proven.
Perfect!
Pro-Life Ping
Ping!
This is a fantastic editorial!
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
“Would you do a Michael Schiavo to your wife?”
If her brain degenerated into cerebral-spinal fluid, yes.
Keeping a corpse breathing for sentimental reasons is downright creepy.
Sometimes I do not know if modern medicine has extended life or prolonged death.
For clarity, please explain this phrase. I don't understand what is involved in "keeping breathing." Your description of a corpse is fairly evident, albeit misguided.
You seem to be of the impression that Terri Schiavo was on life support. You are INCORRECT.
Terri’s breathing functioned the EXACT SAME WAY your’s or mine does. Terri dies because she was starved and dehydrated to death at gunpoint.
Determining death The traditional criteria for death in Jewish sources are cessation of breathing and heartbeat; however, the practice was to wait some time after determining that these signs had occurred before beginning burial procedures (SA Yoreh De’ah 338). However, soon after the Harvard criteria for brain death became standard medical practice, Conservative rabbis accepted brain death (including the brainstem) as fulfilling the traditional criteria of cessation of breathing and heartbeat. In 1988, the Chief Rabbinate of the State of Israel approved heart transplantation from accident victims, thus accepting brain death as well, but this decision remains a matter of dispute among Orthodox rabbis.2,5–11 Authorities in the various movements are now assessing the apnoea test to determine death on the basis of cessation of breath.....
http://www.aabioetica.org/docu/fin%20de%20la%20vida%20perspectiva%20judia.pdf
Again, you want to keep a braindead, yet breathing corpse alive.
No wonder we lost the 2006 elections. The religious right doesn’t care about federalism; they want socialism for God, which is still socialism.
Oh gosh not this again!
““Would you do a Michael Schiavo to your wife?”
Hmmmm,,, I’m now single again. Now if we changed that question to:
“Would you do a Michael Schiavo to your ex-wife?”
Hmmmm,,,,,,,,,,, Hmmmmmmm.(still thinkin’)
“If her brain degenerated into cerebral-spinal fluid, yes.”
That pretty much describes the ex on one of her good days.
Hmmmmmm,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Again, we ARE NOT talking about someone who was brain dead. Neither Michael Schaivo, nor the doctors or lawyers EVER suggest that Terri was brain dead.
A brain dead person CANNOT breathe on their own.
You are not going to like what I am about to say but I am going to say it anyway.
I do not like what happened to Terri, it was tragic to say the least. However do you know why Terri’s parents wanted Terri back? It is because they had it back as a “baby”. OH YES! We all saw the video of Terri and how she acted, and how her mind was gone from the accident. She was now a 2-year old. What is more look at how they dressed her! Look at the ping on this site for “Terri’s List” She is dressed like a 2-year-old!! Not a 40 year old woman! Her parents even talk to her like a 2-year-old. That is how her parents would have treated her had they gotten her back.
But the worse part of that is she would have been mentally at age 2 for the rest of her life and her parents are aging! What happens when they are too old to care for her and they die? Who will care for her then? Back to the nursing home or worse.
I am by no means saying that what Michael did was right, I do not trust him as far as I could throw him.
I am just saying the parents had their own selfish intentions at heart. Terri was not a 2-year-old. She was a 40 year old woman who suffered an accident and needed to be treated as such.
“She was conscious and responding to her parents and nurses.”
An attempt at humor, I suppose?
“... socialism for God, which is still socialism.”
Nope, that’ll be a monarchy.
And re: article - I wouldn’t do that even to my ex.
Let's see:
Raineygoodyear
Since May 15, 2008
Hey newbie, this is a CONSERVATIVE, PRO-LIFE forum. Perhaps you stumbled in here by accident.
Terri did not suffer a “heart attack”.
In fact, the reason she survived so long was because her heart was healthy.
The reason she lived for 2 weeks without hydration is because her heart was strong.
Terri collapsed for an unknown reason.
It was suggested bulimia, or some potassium deficiency was responsible - but that was ruled out.
What they do know is that her brain was starved of oxygen for a period of time prior to receiving emergency care.
Her heart did go into arrest because of the oxygen deprivation, but her collapse was not CAUSED by a heart attack.
Terri's brother and sister (Bobby Schindler and Suzanne Schindler Vitadamo) were more than willing and capable of taking care of Terri for the rest of her life.
“we ARE NOT talking about someone who was brain dead”
You are not.
Terri Schiavo was a brain stem, and you know it.
Let’s also not forget that a person who is found face down WOULD NOT have injuries on her back.
The government had no business in there at all, neither did her parents, she was an adult and married. Her husband had the decision and he made his call, had to use the courts but he made his call. Is there anyone out there who thinks she would be up and about to day if she was alive or would she be lying there on life support(once again, having to be fed and hydrated by artificial means is life support no matter how you spin it)?
We all know the answer, she would still be lying there, never ever having fun, never enjoying life. Life is about more than just lying in a bed breathing.
Terri WAS NOT brain dead, if she were she would have been unable to breathe.
Try learning FACTS and not arguing from emotion, that is a trait of liberals.
With an aging population, the implications for our parents, grandparents and siblings are very similar. Are you implying that we should not care for our own parents as they grow feeble, requiring diapers and feeding assistance?
It wouldn’t ever get that far.
It would be done by mutual agreement to both of us by each other.
did you read Mark Fuhrman’s book?
It’s been awhile since I read it.
I remember it seemed like a book that was written in haste (probably to cash in while the story was still in the news), but it did contain very valuable information, and it showed how many details of this case are misreported.
So - many “myths” have been circulated as fact...that she was bulimic, that she suffered a heart attack, that she was brain dead, that her brain had turned to mush...it’s a long list.
So people wind up arguing over “facts” that are irrelevant because they aren’t true.
As far as Terri being found on her stomach - I remember Fuhrman offered several scenarios where Terri could have been injured as she fell - but I’d have to re-read that part to get the specifics.
Evidently you think breathing is controlled by the cerebral cortex. That would be impossible in Mrs. Schiavo’s case, since most of it degenerated into cerebral spinal fluid. Google Terri Schiavo’s brain scans, and you’ll see what I mean.
This presents no logical difficultly, of course, because unconscious breathing occurs in the BRAIN STEM. Maybe you didn’t learn too much in grade school, but you should at least be able to use the wiki.
*You* are the one who thinks the entire affair, starting with Judge Greer (a conservative Baptist Republican) is a colossal conspiracy. Get a grip on reality.
My favorite theory was that she drank too much iced tea.
The FACT is that the day of her injury, Terri spent $80 having her hair permed and was worried that Michael would get angry.
Another FACT is that she had discussed leaving Michael.
Yet another FACT is that Michael NEVER suggesting killing Terri until AFTER the court had ordered a large sum of money for her rehabilitation.
Maybe you didn’t learn too much in grade school, but you should at least be able to use the wiki.
Maybe you should knock off the personal insults.
I guess she did drink alot of iced tea - but I fail to see how that kills a person.
“The FACT is that the day of her injury, Terri spent $80 having her hair permed and was worried that Michael would get angry.”
true
“Another FACT is that she had discussed leaving Michael.”
true.
“Yet another FACT is that Michael NEVER suggesting killing Terri until AFTER the court had ordered a large sum of money for her rehabilitation.”
very true, and what’s frustrating is that the first case where he won money for care - he argued the fact he needed to take care of her for the rest of her life.
His lawyer argued she would live a normal life span, and therefore needed the money so SHE COULD BE CARED FOR.
As soon as he got the money, he proceeded on his campaign to dehydrate her.
That's impossible. How many brain-dead corpses have you seen breathing? None. And you never will. Because it is absolutely impossible.
Or is it possible you didn't mean "braindead, yet breathing corpse" in a literal sense, but merely as an insult? Please clarify.
Þ
You clearly have not read anything about the case or you would not have posted such an ignorant post.
Read up on it. The information is there.
Learn something before you criticize people who HAVE taken the time to learn the circumstances of this situation.
There are court transcripts -there are doctors/nurses/friends/and family who testified to facts under oath.
Michael made his intentions very clear.
I couldn’t agree more!
I would not have had the feeding tubes removed based on what was known at the time about her brain’s condition.
Based on what the autopsy apparently showed to be the actual conditions, I believe an appropriate decision was made.
However, I think it is appalling that we use such a needlessly harsh method to those in such a condition. It would have been criminal to kill a severely injured dog in such a way, starving and dehydrating it to death.
Rather than “shutting her off” in a humane way, we pretend we’re not really killing her by doing so slowly over a two week period.
I don’t have the answer. Positive methods taken to stop breathing are at least equally creepy and slippery slopey. But there has to be a better way to terminate things than starvation and dehydration. If witholding water isn’t active killing, why should witholding oxygen be, for example?
That's not true. You are either completely misguided and uninformed about Teri's condition prior to her murder or you are a willfull liar. Which is it?
However, we cannot overlook the FACT that 13 days without hydration will certainly have an affect on the brain.
Brain damage is a continuum, from full conciousness to complete brain death.
My understanding is that the autopsy showed her to be most of the way over to the brain death side, with very little upper brain function (or upper brain, FTM) left.
With the hindsight provided by the autopsy, I tend to agree with those who think keeping her breathing served neither her nor anyone else well. I’m not sure that there was sufficient information to make that decision without possible error before the autopsy, though.
Why should winning the Boston Marathon be a prerequisite to the right to life? She had as much right to live as you do. He disabilities did not make her less human. Lack of humanity is what does that. So if being less human subjects someone to a torturous death, you better take care.
First, it is HIPAA, not HIPPA. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996.
Second, the Privacy Rule of HIPAA took effect April 14, 2003. Schiavo's extensive medical records and testimony were in public court documents long before 2003.
See #24
Matthew 7:3
Good point.
My understanding is that atrophy doesn’t happen that rapidly, though.
I think most reasonable people would agree that there wasn’t really much left of Terri by the time they pulled the tubes.
It is much more problematic whether reasonable doubt existed as to her condition when the decision was made. Doctors are fallible.
However, Terri DID NOT have problems breathing on her own. Additionally, Judge Greer refused to allow a swallow test, so we have no way of knowing if she could eat or drink on her own. We DO know that she was denied rehabilitative therapy for a decade.
An attempt at humor?
Btw, he was thrown out of his church because of his participation in Terri's murder.
“I would not have had the feeding tubes removed based on what was known at the time about her brain’s condition.”
Which was very little really. CT scans - and old ones at that.
She had something implanted in an experimental procedure that prevented her from receiving MRI’s.
They could have removed it and had MRI’s done to help ascertain her condition, but Michael blocked that type of thing.
And since she has died, there have been many article writtens about people in this situation, and new testing done to try and see what is happening in their brains.
Too bad no one got a better look at hers.
“Based on what the autopsy apparently showed to be the actual conditions, I believe an appropriate decision was made.”
vegetateive state cannot be diagnosed from autopsy - impossible.
Autopsy showed a shunken brain - which is typical in someone who has been dehydrated (especially for 2 weeks).
Autopsy showed she was very likely blind, or severely vision impaired.
“Rather than “shutting her off” in a humane way, we pretend we’re not really killing her by doing so slowly over a two week period.”
That’s exactly it.
Do you simply admit “let’s directly kill her” by injecting her with some heart stopping potion like we do with murderers on death row? (in that sense - they receive more mercy)
Or do we pretend we aren’t “directly” killing someone by putting them through a 2 week long process?
“If witholding water isn’t active killing, why should witholding oxygen be, for example?”
good question.
Go back to #21.
Matthew 25:31-46
She was not living a life I would have chosen from a list of 14 possible patented lifestyles including Prizewinning Pastry CookTM, Bahama Beach BabeTM, and Contented Matriarch in a Rustic Country PlaceTM, , but it was the only life she had. One of her nurses, Carla Sauer Iler, says that when Terri was under her care, she could enjoy being fed jello froma spoon, loved a lotion back-rub, became more animated when her
Hey, I can relate to that.
Enjoying all the little things in life that you can enjoy, living with people who care for you (her parents), loving and being loved: who says this is not a life worth living? Who says she's "better off" rotting in the ground?
It was not she, but her estranged husband (who inherited everything) who chose the latter option for her. I think I'm entitled to say that Michael is the creepy one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.