Replies

So who do you guys believe if you don't believe the Schiavos? All the Schindlers had was a couple of people who remembered Terri saying something vague about the matter when she was 11-12 years old. There were inconsistencies in their testimony, too. Do you believe them over the Schiavos? If so, why?

Regardless, of who said what to who...it is nothing but heresay and shouldn't have been admissable in court to begin with. Gee, what great world we live in now, that we have to watch our commentary on tv shows from 10 years ago, b/c people will testify from hearsay and you're liikely to be starved to death. nevermind the fact that even if you may have said something contradictory to what you originally said 5 years afer the event...but that doesn't count...right?

It isn't a matter of who I believe, I don't know any of the people. I submit that when we don't know (and we don't) we err on the side of life. Period.
susie

I have stayed out of this, but the insanity of these threads is starting to get to me. It is like a Bizarro DU, with ideas like the Secret Service grabbing Terri or a wall of people standing there to stop whatever it is they want to stop.

Bottom line: THE SSCHINDLERS HAVE NO STANDING! Once Terri got married, by EVERY POSSIBLE LAW, the husband was allowed to act on her behalf. Removing feeding tubes from persons in a persistent vegetative state happens all the time.

I know that if I expressed my desire that I be allowed to pass rather than be a vegetable (don't jump in here with your opinions about whether she is or isn't -- many doctors and over 20 judges have adjudicated she is) to my wife and then my family and then CONGRESS, for Goodness sake, put their nose in where it didn't belong, I would be pissed in advance if I knew they were going to do it.

This is all about the husband being a scumbag. No matter how many threads are posted, this is a personal matter. Unless the endgame is to never allow feeding tubes to be removed under any circumstance in the presence of autonomic breathing, this should never have been

"So who do you guys believe if you don't believe the Schiavos? All the Schindlers had was a couple of people who remembered Terri saying something vague about the matter when she was 11-12 years old. There were inconsistencies in their testimony, too. Do you believe them over the Schiavos? If so, why?"

I don't think one has to believe either side. I don't think that's the issue. The law requires that the person stay on life support UNLESS there is clear and convincing evidence that the patient would refuse life support, however that term is defined. In this case, I think there are serious questions about Terri's desires, specifically because the family disagrees. Therefore, the law should presume in favor of life.

I believe the doctors (and it should have stayed at that level) should do nothing to end the life of a patient when the family and other witnesses disagree about the patient's wishes. I was a critical care nurse for years. There were times we removed people from life support in hopeless situations. The doctors typically acted at the request of a very unified family who all insisted the patient did not want life support, after ensuring they heard from all immediate family members, which would include spouse, adult children, siblings, and parents. Whenever the family disagreed, or if there were questions about their credibility, the doctor erred on the side of life. I shudder to think of all the people who would have died if the decision was left up to just one or a few members of a large family.

Note, in Ohio "life support" does not mean nutrition and hydration. I've NEVER seen food and water withdrawn in all my years of practice. I've seen dying patients refuse food and water, but it was always offered.