Posted on 03/21/2005 12:23:45 AM PST by ambrose
Life support battle winds down, patient transferred to San Antonio hospital
06:37 PM CST on Sunday, March 20, 2005
By Amy Tortolani / 11 News
A man who had been on a respirator at St. Luke's Hospital arrived at a new facility Sunday in San Antonio. While the life support battle appears to be winding down, this situation could eventually involve lawmakers.
Watching the ambulance pull away from St. Luke's Hospital with Spiro Nikolouzos in it was not only a victory for his family, but another chance at life.
"I am so happy that this happened that he is out of here," said Janette Nikolouzos, patient's wife.
Spiro Nikolouzos has been an invalid since 2001 and complications last month left him unable to breathe on his own.
St. Luke' Hospital had planned to take the 68-year-old man off life support.
"This has never been an issue about St. Luke's or anyone that works at St. Luke's wanting to take this man off life support," said Dr. David Pate, St. Luke's. "It's been about what's best for him and should we be forced to continue providing care to someone that we think is futile and we think may be hurting them and ultimately, will make no impact on the quality of life."
Mrs. Nikolouzos fought to keep her husband alive and took St. Luke's to court.
After many extensions and stays, but before a final decision was ever reached, the family found a facility in San Antonio to care for their loved one.
"Free at last free at last. You didn't get to kill him," said Janette Nikolouzos.
But it's not the end of this life support case. Mrs. Nikolouzos is ready to take on Texas lawmakers who have given hospitals the right to remove patients from life support after giving 10 days notice, unless there is clear evidence another facility can provide care.
"They are out of control to make a law like this, it's shameful," said Janette Nikolouzos. "The way I feel for them giving so much power to the doctors and the hospitals they should bury their heads in the sand like an ostrich. It's disgraceful for this state.
Family members said while they won this battle, they admit the father and husband they knew will never fully recover. But at least now, they say, there's a chance.
There is supposed to be another court hearing on Wednesday, but the family's attorney said there is a conference call scheduled with the judge Monday.
< His family says "no." Why shouldn't they get the same consideration that the Schindlers got? >
This issue is not about what the family wants. It's about killing someone who is clearly alive and functioning, but disabled. A person who is brain-dead and on a ventilator is not. Here is the distinction:
I am fighting for Terri because Terri is not PVS and can live "with a disbility"...NOT and I repeat, NOT because her family wants her to live.
A person who is brain-dead and on a ventilator is not the same thing no matter what the family issue is.
Bottom line is, I am not siding with ANY family here. I'm looking at the patient. These are 2 entirely different circumstances.
If the Schindler's had agreed with TS husband, she would have been dead eight years ago.
Of course it's about what the family wants.
Because, ultimately, doctors do decide on appropriate treatment or we'd have hospitals filled with living corpses bacuse so may families just can't let go.
Flatline...just keep shocking
No breathing....ventilator
etc.
I know of a young intern who had seven people die on his first night... he wouldn't stop with procedures... finally taken aside by senior staff and was taught that there are times to let go... that no one could have saved these seven and that they shouldn't have the dying process delayed because of his pride.
It's a hard lesson, but there *are* times when we must let go. Forcing that decision on families is an unnecessary cruelty.
The bill aint worth the paper it's written on, once a Liberal judge rules it unconstitutional.
If you're so "Pro-Terri" why the rush to kill this guy?
But didn't you hear Sensenbrenner last night on the floor of the House.
He contradicted himself twice. When he opened the session I clearly heard him say that this bill will help others in a similar situation as Terri.
Anyone who thinks that bill won't be used as precedent is naive.
Of course. Every end-of-life dispute is now subject to federal court review.
He's dying and in pain.
Treatment causes more pain.
He is not going to recover with current medical technology.
I'm not for killing him. He is already dying.
Terri needs only food.
In Florida law, hydration and food are considered a "medical procedure."
If only you realized how hypocritical your post reads.
A medical procedure is not the same thing as life support.
A bandage for a sprained ankle is a medical procdure.
A tube to get the food into you is a medical procedure.
A ventilator is life support.
And family members who have other agendas not clear to the court are going to muck things up, just like this case.
You're right about health care costs; I hadn't even factored that into the equation yet.
Sorry you feel that way.
His family doesn't want him to be put to death by a team of death doctors. It's not up to you, me, the courts, or Congress to kill this guy. Afford this family the same courtesy extended to the Schindlers for the past 12 years.
Don't worry about me. I warned people of this slippery slope months ago, and here we are.
They called the guy an "invalid". Isn't that a politically incorrect word. Or are they going to start dehumanizing all disabled people now?
Terri is not on life support and is not in pain.
Perhaps you are not aware that a hospital cannot give enough pain meds to relieve the pain if that amount might hasten death by so much as one day. Only hospices can provide palliative care adequate for patient comfort.
I'm aware she's not on life support, how do you know she's not in pain?
"If you think health care's expensive now, wait until hospitals start propping up Aunt Gertie in the corner for fear of being taken to federal court."
Ya know, I find the Left's arguments for killing Terri to be shockingly lame. Insisting Terri's PVS when she clearly isn't, ignoring the massive conflicts of interest that Schiavo has, ignoring the huge number of Florida statutes that Greer has allowed MS to violate. I believe they're primarily motivated by antipathy to the Christian Right - whatever they want, liberals hate.
But none of them are making any arguments as repulsive as you are. You're arguing the "Useless Eater" argument, right out of Hitler's playbook. And I realize you're not alone - there's a lot of other people on this board, some old timers, making the same argument.
I'm frankly ill to my stomach over it. I've always believed that the notion that the Nazi philosophy is "right wing" to be a false liberal canard - the Nazis were clearly socialists. But listening to you guys making the same "Useless Eater" argument made by the Nazis, I'm having to reconsider that for the first time in my life.
Congratulations.
Qwinn
He could recover and become a lawyer.
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.