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.
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.