Posted on 10/16/2003 12:12:21 PM PDT by nickcarraway
Edited on 04/21/2004 9:00:47 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
PINELLAS PARK, Fla. - The parents of a severely brain-damaged woman and others fighting to keep her alive stepped up the pressure on Gov. Jeb Bush to intervene in the case Thursday.
The feeding tube keeping Terri Schiavo alive was removed Wednesday, culminating a decade-long legal fight between her parents and her husband. Doctors say she will live as long as two weeks without it.
(Excerpt) Read more at jacksonville.com ...
If it weren't for modern medicine WE WOULD have ALL died long ago.
Feeding her anything without a physician's recommendation would be an incredibly stupid thing to do. Isn't one of the problems that she cannot swallow?
There's an awful lot of hearsay involved in these emotional posts. You make a valid point.
Why what? Shouldn't the onus of proof be on the person who wants to take a life? Shouldn't you give the proof, since you demand that the government have the right to take a life?
Yes indeed we do, if we care about preserving the dignity of their lives. I'm sorry that happened to your mother, but heartened that you later responded the way you did.
That is correct.
The fundamental right in this case is the right to life. The court is failing to recognize that historically held and recognized right, but instead is focusing on other extraneous and irrelevant points. In fact the court holds that the woman is still alive by it's own words.
It so happens that the guardian recognized by the court is the husband. The husband's legitimacy to hold guardianship rests on the basis that he be acting in his incapacitated woman's best interest. Historically the fundamental feature of a person's best interest is that of their very life, not any particular quality of that life. Life is the most fundamental civil right. In this case neither the court, nor the recognized guardian hold that interest and right to be of any consequence.
Here is the relevant FL law regarding this matter regarding guardianship and the requirement that a guardian act in the guarded's best interest. In this case the facts regarding the guarded's wishes concerning life support measures are unknown and both the guardian and court are presuming her will for her. Both FL and US code holds life as a fundamental right.
Fundamental purpose/ legislative intent. FL stat. 704.1012
744.1012 Legislative intent.--The Legislature finds that adjudicating a person totally incapacitated and in need of a guardian deprives such person of all her or his civil and legal rights and that such deprivation may be unnecessary. The Legislature further finds that it is desirable to make available the least restrictive form of guardianship to assist persons who are only partially incapable of caring for their needs. Recognizing that every individual has unique needs and differing abilities, the Legislature declares that it is the purpose of this act to promote the public welfare by establishing a system that permits incapacitated persons to participate as fully as possible in all decisions affecting them; that assists such persons in meeting the essential requirements for their physical health and safety, in protecting their rights, in managing their financial resources, and in developing or regaining their abilities to the maximum extent possible; and that accomplishes these objectives through providing, in each case, the form of assistance that least interferes with the legal capacity of a person to act in her or his own behalf. This act shall be liberally construed to accomplish this purpose."
Physical health and safety-her health- her right!
Jeb, the Fl AG and US AG Ashcroft should make this clear to the court and the public, and also take appripriate action to insure the right to life and the will of the incapacitated are held as fundamental concerns in all of these matters.
I tried to answer a similar question in post # 62.
There are other ethical and religious issues involved that you might want to consider in order to understand this saga.
She CAN swallow - proved by the fact that she does not drool.
They are witholding any test to see if she can be fed without the feeding tube.
We treat dogs better than this!!
Not only his motive suspect, his claim contradicts his sworn court testimony. When he was suing the hospital etc. he testified he needed the money to care for her at their home. He did not say anything about a wish to die then.
They are witholding any test to see if she can be fed without the feeding tube.
You really think that the people in the hospice don't know whether or not she can swallow--after what, 13 years?
Her caregivers know whether or not she can swallow--and if she can, the extent to which she can.
Yes - that's what I'm saying. They have withheld all kinds of basic treatment from this woman. It sounds like you have not read all the information available.
Many times a feeding tube is used for the convenience of staff - so that they don't have to hand feed a person.
Poor Terri when I think how that monster-so-called husband of hers had treated her.... why, I could kick his a$$ets into next week!
See my post #91. Her doctors know. Her caretakers know. There's no way she could have been in hospice care as long as she has without their knowing.
Well, I'm back. And while you may have a point, it seems pretty cut-and-dried.
1. She is not legally competant, therefore her closest next-of-kin is now responsible for her.
2. Since the husband is now the primary person to decide what is best, the parents have no legal standing.
3. Since she is in a vegetative (or autonomic) state, removing her means of life support- whether a feeding tube or respirator or whatever- can be done. The end result, whether considered ghastly or not, is the same.
4. The legal precedents for this have been long-established, and are relied upon by those of us still living to preclude our being a turnip for (up to) decades past where we're already dead.
5. The judicial system has upheld this (repeatedly), and all the "suspicions" and possible monetary or personal motivations are irrelevant.
Did I miss anything?
One day his mom went in as she did everyday and decided to eat her lunch in his room. On this day she had carried a bowl of soup or broth as she was feeling a little under the weather. She normally didn't eat in front of Chuck as she felt guilty for doing so when he couldn't. On this day Chuck, the vegetable, was really staring her down, so to speak. She asked him if he wanted some and by her understanding he communicated "yes" to her through grunts. She gave him a drop to begin with.
He rolled it around in his mouth as it was foreign to him having been so long since he had had any food. He eventually swallowed it. She proceeded to add to the amount until it was a spoonful and he was fully capable of swallowing. I believe that he would have devoured the entire thermos had she let him. She called in the nurse who in turn called the Dr. They immediately began therapy with him to teach him to be able to control his swallowing. Now Chuck eats with his "good side".
See, Chuck's mom fought tooth and nail to get rehabilitation therapy for Chuck. His father was against it. His reasoning was that Chuck had suffered enough and that the rehab would be too painful. His mom even lost custody of him for a short while but won it back.
Chuck has had therapy although he still cannot speak. We don't know if he ever will without some surgery and the $$$ isn't there to have that done now. However, just last month he began saying "mama" on his own. Yes, 18 years later he has begun to speak. It's limited, I know. Chuck still lives in a nursing home but he is responsive as Terri is. The clips of her are almost identical to him. We KNOW that he recognizes us. We also know that he feels emotions and the he feels pain. He may never go back into society as a functioning human being. We don't care. He is with us and when asked if he is happy he grins so big.
Years ago he became notorious for "shooting the bird" at people who fussed at him. When we ask him why he is doing things that he isn't supposed to do, according to his original prognosis, and what he thinks about the Dr's who said these things he offers his one finger salute.
I wish that he had had the opportunity to receive the intense therapy that he needed but his father denied him that. His mother pays out of pocket for any extra therapy so it is seldom that he gets specialized treatment. We work with him as much as possible. We stretch muscles, we get him to try to vocalize. Hell, you would swear that he sings sometimes. The main thing we did is not confine him to a room in a home. We carry him to the beach. We bring him home for a couple of weeks at a time when we arrange for one of us to care for him. We rotate in that department. We treat him like he is as normal as you can be. Just this 4th of July my husband gave him a beer. You should have seen him drink that beer. Oh well, I could tell you so much more but won't.
My point is, do not ever say never. You will always be shocked at the human will.
She has no business to be in hospice care either. She never has been diagosed as a 'terminal' patient.
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.