Woman's Sustaining Care Resumed- But Experts Say No Hope Exists For Her Recovery

The Washington Post ^ | October 23, 2003 | Rob Stein

[Pan_Yans Wife]

Life support for Terri Schiavo was resumed yesterday in a Florida hospital room, but many experts said there is virtually no hope that she will ever recover, despite her parents' desperate hopes.

"If it's over a year, she's not ever going to get up," said Fred Plum, a professor emeritus at Weill Cornell Medical College in New York. "You just don't see it. It just doesn't happen."

Schiavo, 39, has been in a persistent vegetative state since her heart stopped for unknown reasons in 1990. A feeding tube in her stomach was removed Oct. 15 after her husband, Michael, who said his wife had told him she would not want to be kept alive under such circumstances, won a long series of court battles to have life-sustaining nourishment withdrawn so she could die.

[HELLRAISER II]

As it should be, thank goodness.

[shhrubbery!]

Do we ever consider if Terri does want to die?

Have you watched this video of Terri opening her eyes wide at a doctor's command?

Stay with the video to the end (about 30 seconds), and then tell me if you don't see a tremendous will to live.

[muskogee]

I agree that we can't be changing laws left and right, case by case. But we aren't talking about rules you live by. In this case, we are talking about rules you die by.

[verity]

You can summarize your rhetoric by using "slippery slope."

[HELLRAISER II]

Come on now, we can't decipher that as a will to live or die. I'm not saying it's not, but that argument just won't work for either side. However I'm in hopes that she could communicate by blinking her eyes or something in the near future to let us know what she wants.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

presumably err on the side of life.

Are you then saying that your loved one may have been mistaken and erred on the side of death, until they later saw the child's ability to recover? I am not trying to berate you, but I just see a correlation between the two points.

In all honesty, we truly do not have a great deal of information by which to characterize what Schiavo's thoughts and feelings are about his wife's care. That being said, a new GAL will soon take over. But, in the meantime, does it necessarily follow that he is only on the side of death? If that is the case, what is to stop him from killing her tonight?

Should we be worried that he will kill her tonight?

I believe that Terri's parents love their daughter. But, I wouldn't be able to testify in court that they are only fulfilling her wishes, 100%. Obviously they have a biased opinion... who could NOT in their position?

I truly believe that a third party MUST step in soon... because 13 years of gridlock need to come to a head, and if she should live, it should be determined today and the plan stuck to for the rest of time.

[editor-surveyor]

If the culture of death is allowed to grow any further, that mild pressure we experienced, pressure to "pull the plug", will become stronger every day.

Or it will become like it is in the Nederlands: mandatory cessation of life support at the moment that the physician determines that you are consuming state funds unjustifiably.

[jwalsh07]

What is curious to me is that the court requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt to convict mass murderers and sentence them to death but requires only hearsay evidence from dubious sources to sentence an innocent woman to a crule and unusual death.

Equal treatment under the law? What a joke.

[NYFriend]

I don't presum to speak for you or anyone else. I will rephase my statement to remove the word which, which may have confused you.

American Culture has a cultural fear of death that is so strong that there are people who are terminally ill and either suffering or total unable to respond to or interact with the outside world, and their families keep them alive for a few days, weeks or years just so their heart keeps beating. This isn't done for them.

I read the article your cited. You're right, sometimes medical science is wrong. But, if you live you're life assuming that science is wrong whenever it tells you something you don't like, you do a diservice to yourself.

[PleaseNoMore]

No she did not err on the side of death. She did not have conflicting medical opinions before her as MS has before him. There was ONE opinion. Dr. Daniel Hucks Follis ( sp? ) of Pinehurst, NC, at the time one of the most popular and trusted neurologists here, told her, in no uncertain terms, that Chuck was "gone". Had she had conflicting medical opinions she would have chosen to keep him on life support, indefinately. Her decision was based upon lack of knowledge. MS's do not seem to be based upon lack of knowledge. They seem to be based upon lack of compassion.

[PleaseNoMore]

One more thought. It is true that we don't have direct insight to MS's "feelings" we do know what actions he has taken and what actions he has not taken. That speaks volumes to me.

[ClancyJ]

Well I can't agree with people playing God and deciding whether someone else lives and dies. Let them decide about their life if they want to play God.

As we have seen - people do not always use the moral high ground, they let their personal preferences determine every thing they do. This is not fair to the person dying.

Some may be treated greatly - but others will be murdered and it will be called "right to die" based on lies.

No way. I am smart enough to see where this is heading.

Especially since hearing the talk shows and all the personal case stories.

Would you want someone who did not even like you while you were well deciding that it is time for you to go? And would you want to trust that person to consider what you want instead of what they feel is best?

Not me - too many people that like the power of playing God - as we have seen in the liberal movement, in abortion, in fetus stem cell research promotion, in partial birth abortions. Too many love the right to kill.

We must protect the weak from these ghouls.

[shhrubbery!]

Come on now, we can't decipher that as a will to live or die. I'm not saying it's not, but that argument just won't work for either side. However I'm in hopes that she could communicate by blinking her eyes or something in the near future to let us know what she wants.

If Terri didn't want to live, she wouldn't have responded so clearly and dramatically. Heck, she probably wouldn't have lasted all these 13 years with her husband's trying to kill her, if she didn't want to!

Please read the NY Times article, Inside the minds of PVS patients.

People in PVS do hear, feel, and think. They can be taught to communicate with their eyes. This article will stun you.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

Where has it been stated that doctors gave him conflicting opinions? I have never seen a statement to that effect, like Dr. X told him that Dr. Z was wrong, and Terri could recover?

Because if your only source for that is the courtroom testimony, that the conflict resides between the expert witnesses that are HIRED to work for the both sides, then this doesn't really apply. Because both sides should be disregarded (per your narrow example) as having an agenda... ie, to prove the counsels' case.

[exmarine]

American Culture has a cultural fear of death that is so strong that there are people who are terminally ill and either suffering or total unable to respond to or interact with the outside world, and their families keep them alive for a few days, weeks or years just so their heart keeps beating. This isn't done for them.

Read our founding documents - the right to life is God-given and cannot be abrogated by ANY PERSON. The right to life is unalienable, especially for Terri who is NOT comatose at all - any idiot can see that. Yet, the media continues to use that word "comatose".

[GO65]

A young woman left in a coma for six years after she collapsed at school has started to respond to the world around her after her mother took her to see her pop star hero Bryan Adams perform live.

There is a difference between a coma and a persistent vegitative state. This is an apples-oranges example.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

I do believe there has been a great deal of speculation about MS being a heartless murderer and that he should be killed... to me, this points out that people are characterizing his motives, not necessarily all based on facts, but on their own emotional attachment to the issue. This is perfectly normal, of course... we all project our own biases, but it is still disturbing. Until I see that he is being interviewed by LE for a crime, then I cannot necessarily believe he has committed one, under current law.

[Saundra Duffy]

This has really been interesting. Good news is that now we know for sure that we're in the end times. I need to get ready.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

LOL... you aren't ready? It doesn't take much to prepare. Pack light!

[Salvation]

True. Thank you!