Playing God with Terri Schiavo, and millions found it moral

Then if you're brain damaged and you couldn't swallow food and needed a feeding tube, I could not, in good conscience, allow you live and take up valuable space.

Those tens of thousands of severely retarded and otherwise handicapped people--you know the ones I mean, those who have never, since the day they were born, shown ANY awareness--living in state-run institutions are taking up a heck of a lot of space. It's clear that not one of them is ever going to improve. Furthermore, the billions we are spending on their care could be way better spent.

Have you filed a petition with Judge Greer yet to have them all starved to death, too? If not, why not? What are you waiting for?

"You wouldn't happen to be of the rubber stamptrooper ilk"

Obviously not. I read for myself and think for myself.

You ought to try it, rather than guzzling down the propaganda kool-aid you find at terrisfight.org, and then regurgitating it here as fact. Michael is a monster, Greer is on the take, Terri never wanted that, this is about euthanasia, her brain isn't liquid slush -- Terri is merely "severely disabled", the Federal Judges are in on it too, on and on.

Take it to DU. They love the fact-less quotes, the emotion driven posts like yours. In reviewing your posts, you've got lies stacked on top of conjecture, mixed with propaganda and topped off with conspiracy theories. If you quoted a fact, it would be accidental.

Begone, agitator.

"This whole act shows how easily sheeple can be manipulated...

Do not believe what you see on TV.

All people know at some level that this was a government-ordered execution of an innocent woman by starvation.

The repercussions to this we do not know yet. But there are going to be repercussions.

Thank you greatly for your response, robertpaulsen. I'm wondering though, when exactly did she say that she never wanted to live artificially on machines? Was she even old enough to drink?

Is a machine considered a feeding tube?

Moreover, since her desires were not in writing, and the fact that her husband according to friends and family hadn't any idea what Terri's desires were until 7 years after she was disabled doesn't make his statements very convincing added to the fact that the judge used only the Schiavo family's statements and threw out the others that were at odds with theirs.

In real life we change our minds daily, sometimes hourly, sometimes monthly, who knows? It's the way humans are.

In real life some of us joke and make lots of careless remarks about quality of life without seriously considering the consequences of those off hand remarks.

Should a young person be held to a remark such as supposedly Terri made as had she been able to grow and mature with time may have changed her mind and thought more on the details of quality of life?

These perhaps are things a jury would examine. Real life situations and experience. I see that most people would not want to live as Terri had, but do we actually know how Terri lived? We shuld not place ourselves in her place? How can we? She is Terri, you are you and I am me.

What is PVS and the standards to become labelled such? I heard that it is a very rigorous set of standards to meet?

Dr. Cranford said she was, others said she wasn't. Why is Cranford's word carry greater weight and value over others of same qualifications, but may not be doctor's who champion euthanasia, as Cranford clearly does?

With all of the questions and doubts surrounding Terri's wishes, medical condition, mixed with our own perceptions and knowledge, and Terri's blood family willing and desiring to take care of their beloved daughter and sister, where there is life, what was the harm in keeping her alive if all she needed was food, water and perhaps more medical attention than was given to her.

Furthermore, how can anyone have been placed legally in a hospice facility for 5 years which was designed to be for only a stay of 6 months or less for the terminally ill? Terri was not terminally ill.

Also, robertpaulsen, when you say "this is not a euthanasia case" and if I were on a jury I'd clearly agree it was not, for what happened the doctors and judges starved her to death, otherwise she'd still be living, her parents would be seeing her. Her husband could go and marry his mistress, give his children his name, maybe he wouldn't get the $2 million from CBS for the movie rights, and more for book rights, public appearances, but what's all that to a man who said he loves her.

Darn, it's just too bad that many young people think they are invincible, say flippant remarks, puts nothing in writing then if something should come their way that incapacitates them, then a moral conflict arises between the families, then it goes to a judge, the judge then decides in favor of death by starvation, leaving the country divided and at odds with pro-death and pro-life proponents.

What a mess.

robertpaulsen, sorry to be venting and wandering. I thank you for your kind, thoughtfully logical and reflective posts.

>"all pope, all the time" news coverage, pertinent only to one denomination.<

Pope John Paul 11 was a major world figure. He was instrumental in bringing down the Iron Curtain, along with President Reagan.

His passing is pertinent to all Americans, not just to Catholics. Don't be so myopic.

"I'm wondering though, when exactly did she say that she never wanted to live artificially on machines?"

Actually, I don't know exactly when. Also, I don't know that she phrased it that way either.

I do know that she made such statements to her husband, Michael, to his brother, Scott, and to her best friend, Joan, and Judge Greer accepted their sworn testimony as a valid wish by Terri. The judge later concluded that it was Terri's wish not to live in her brain damaged condition artificially supported by a feeding tube.

Terri's mother and one of her friends, however, testified that Terri would not have wanted the "plug pulled". But, based on the circumstances of those conversations, Judge Greer concluded that they must have taken place when Terri was 11 years old. The mother (but not the friend) then conceded that this had to have been the case.

"Is a machine considered a feeding tube?"

Again, I don't know that Terri said quote unquote "I don't want to be connected to a machine". Her comment to others may have been worded differently. Judge Greer determined that, however Terri originally phrased it, it did apply to the feeding tube. Furthermore, the 1990 Cruzan decision (U.S. Supreme Court) stated that a person has a "liberty interest" in being able to leave instructions rejecting "artificial" food and hydration. And, the 1990 Florida Browning decision requires that oral evidence of oral statements be permitted to count in court.

"that her husband ... hadn't any idea what Terri's desires were until 7 years after she was disabled"

Yeah. That he "forgot" then "suddenly remembered". Don't believe it. I don't.

Ask yourself this one question -- What if Michael, from day one, had insisted that "Terri wouldn't want to live this way" and was actively promoting the pulling of her feeding tube? What would have been your reaction?

"Hey, what's the hurry?" "Give it some time" "She may get better" "We haven't exhausted all the possibilities" "There's still hope"

Right?

So Michael waits. After three years, the doctors tell him there is no hope. Michael orders a DNR (Do Not Resuscitate). Terri continues to live. A CAT scan is done in 1996 showing Terri's cerebral cortex gone and replaced by spinal fluid.

Finally convinced that there was no hope, Michael took it to Judge Greer in 1997 to make a determination as to what Terri would have wanted. It is ludicrous to suggest that Michael "suddenly remembered" in 1997 that Terri did not want to live this way.

"What is PVS and the standards to become labelled such? I heard that it is a very rigorous set of standards to meet?"

Keep in mind that the standards for PVS weren't set until 1994 (some posters are trying to discredit Dr. Cranford who made a "PVS" misdiagnosis in 1979 -- the patient was actuallly in a coma, not PVS).

You'd be better off Googling up PVS and reading about it for yourself, rather than me trying to explain it.

"what was the harm in keeping her alive if all she needed was food, water and perhaps more medical attention than was given to her."

Normally, no harm whatsoever. But, again, you're treating this like a euthanasia case. You're buying into the propaganda.

The "harm" is that Terri expressed a wish not to live like this. That's the harm. It was against her expressed wish. Her parents had no right to interfere. I don't give a FF how noble their intentions were. If they truly loved Terri, they would have honored her wish.

" Furthermore, how can anyone have been placed legally in a hospice facility for 5 years which was designed to be for only a stay of 6 months or less for the terminally ill? Terri was not terminally ill."

Good point. You are correct. Terri was not terminally ill, a requirement for admission to a hospice.

But, once Judge Greer ordered the feeding tube removed, she qualified as terminally ill since she was only expected to live no more than two weeks.

This dragged on for five years because Judge Greer's order was challenged in the courts all that time.

"and if I were on a jury I'd clearly agree it was not, for what happened the doctors and judges starved her to death"

Actually, there is a thing called "passive euthanasia" where the feeding tube (or other artificial means) are removed. If Terri hadn't expressed this verbal wish and the feeding tube were disconnected, this would have been a case of passive euthansia. Then one can certainly make statements like "she was killed" and the like.

"Darn, it's just too bad that many young people think they are invincible, say flippant remarks, puts nothing in writing then if something should come their way that incapacitates them, then a moral conflict arises between the families, then it goes to a judge, the judge then decides in favor of death by starvation, leaving the country divided and at odds with pro-death and pro-life proponents."

Excellent summary of the Terri Schiavo case.

"why did MS hire the leading euthanasia activist lawyer in the country???"

Coincidence?

"Why was the ACLU paying most of MS legal fees??

Geez, I've been told all along that the legal fees were paid out of Terri's medical trust fund. So, whose ranting should I believe?

"Why was Terri put in hospice for 5 years when the law says 6 mos or less to live before you can enter hospice."

Why? Because of nosy right-to-life fanatics like you, that's why.

Judge Greer ordered Terri's feeding tube removed in February, 2000. She was placed in a hospice because she was only expected to live for two weeks at the most.

Endless legal appeals kept her there for five years.

"Why was the judge, the lawyer and state reps all on this board of directors??"

The judge wasn't on the board. The lawyer stepped down as chairman of the board when he took the case. And state reps? Who?

Want some facts?

1) Both Judge Greer and Barbara Sheen Todd were County Commissioners simultaneously for eight years. Barbara Sheen Todd was a board member of the Hospice of the Florida Suncoast.

2) Martha Lenderman was a board member of the Hospice of the Florida Suncoast. Martha Lenderman is the sister of Judge John Lenderman who works with Judge Greer.

3) Judge Greer was never on the board.

Did the movie come out around 1982? If Terri saw the movie for the first time based on the fight to pull the respirator around the time she had this discussion it would explain the tense in which she was discussing it.

Where did you get your Doctor of Radiology degree?

I know that they don't insert tubes for convienience at care facilities. NEVER.

Take that up with Dr. McConnell, and I' wager there are others who would hold as he does.

Use of Feeding Tubes in Advanced Alzheimer's Disease and Dementia Patients-Part I Within the last 4 months the two most prestigious medical research journals, the New England Journal of Medicine and The Journal of the American Medical Association, have published articles questioning the use of tube feeding in people with advanced cases of Alzheimer's disease and dementia. This appears to be a stance favored by many experts in the dementia field. Figures indicate that presently about 36,000 dementia patients have feeding tubes.
The research in these articles involved a review of the medical literature and indicated that there was no evidence that feeding tubes helped most patients. Additionally, they found that this procedure could be harmful in a number of cases.
The iatrogenic effects include infection, diarrhea, and bloating. Another common occurrence is that the patient who feels uncomfortable with a feeding tube will pull it out. This may in turn result in the patient being placed under restraint.
The NY Times (Jan. 20, 2000) quotes Dr. Stephen McConnell, a spokesperson for the Alzheimer's Association which was not a participant in these studies: "This is a position we actually took years ago, that it is ethically permissible to withdraw or withhold hydration and nutrition from somebody in advanced stages. Now there's some scientific evidence that tube feeding doesn't do what everybody thinks, prolong life or make people more comfortable."
Dr. McConnell is further quoted as saying that the tube is often used for the convenience of nursing home staff. "The problem in homes is that it is costs more to pay a person to feed a patient that it does to just jam in a tube and walk away." This statement arises because of the amount of time that the nursing home staff member would have to spend trying to plead and cajole such a resident into taking even a slight amount of nutrition. When you have several such residents in one wing of the home the staff members could be tied up for many hours per day trying to feed the residents.
Then there is the question of insurance payment. Insurers pay for a feeding tube, but do not pay to have a staff member feed a resident. The former is a reimbursable medical procedure and the latter is an activity of daily living, not separately reimbursable because it involves a functional activity.
Dr. Muriel Gillick wrote the article in the New England Journal of Medicine. Dr. Gillick is associate professor of medicine at Harvard and staff doctor at the Hebrew Rehabilitation Center for the Aged in Boston. She compared tube fed patients with non tube fed patients and found that they do not live longer, nor do they show signs of being better nourished than the non tube fed patients. She also reported that the tube fed patients have lung problems from choking on their own saliva and stomach secretions. Dr. Gillick indicated that elderly people with advanced dementia who have eating problems die within six months, whether they have a feeding tube or do not have a feeding tube. It is Dr. Gillick's feeling that loss of appetite in Alzheimer's disease is a sign of the final stage in a fatal disease. Such terminally ill people "not given food or water did not suffer hunger or thirst and could be kept comfortable with ice chips and swabs to moisten the mouth and lips. Dehydration leads them to lapse into comas and die peacefully..." (NY Times, Jan. 20, 2000)
Harold Rubin, MS, ABD, CRC, Guest Lecturer
January 22, 2000

http://www.therubins.com/geninfo/feedtubes.htm <-- Link

Other readers of this post are encouraged to visit that link. Here are later paragraphs.

Our mother died ten days before they were to remove this tube. She had lived along and fulfilling life. We had researched the effects of dehydration and starvation and were comfortable with the researchers who felt it would not be painful.
The situation with our mother is different than the terminally ill dementia or cancer case. She was in neither of these cohort groups.

The verb tense needs no explanation. It was fine. This was spoken English, not formal writing. You don't have to be fussy about grammar to communicate. Listen to two teen-age girls on the phone.

Even in formal writing, you can use present tense to speak of past events. Historians often write in present tense and historical novelists almost always do. It lends dramatic interest, whereas a book full of past-tense verbs can be a bore.

In this case, the Quinlans' attempts to pull the plug on their adopted daughter were the story, the headline news. It was a bitter, rancorous fight that went on for most of a year as best I recall, and went all the way to the Supreme Court.

The removal of the ventilator at the end of all this was a mere detail after the fight was over. It was anti-climax. Terri had no reason to mention it, so it is pointless to infer anything from the fact that she did not.

Here's a long, enlightening discussion of the scan by an experienced radiologist. It's been posted before, but if you haven't read this, it's fascinating.

A radiologist looks at Terri's CT scan

Just the brain dead - non-person - useless eater - unimportant - bag of bones - less than human: woman named Terri.

Dear Lord, do you think before you post? And, yes I care greatly about the Pope, and wept when he left us.

Glad to be here, learning more than I wanted about the character of many Freepers,

Mogirl