Posted on 03/28/2006 7:19:33 AM PST by NYer
Hey Mike, there was another answer. It's called D-I-V-O-R-C-E. You will some day be called to account for yourself. I don't envy you.
End-of-life choices are one thing. In Terri's case, defibrillation, intubation and the administration of drugs to keep her heart beating and lungs functioning would have been overdoing it; I'm not arguing that. However, food and water are fairly basic needs. No one should be dehydrated to death; no one. Assuming for the sake of arguement that she was permanently brain-damaged and there was no hope of recovery (and honestly, I don't know whether that was the case or not) she should not have had to go through the horror that is such a death. In death by dehydration, the skin becomes so dry that it literally will come off the body if you touch it firmly. The lining of the mouth and nose cracks and bleeds. The urine becomes so concentrated in toxicity that it literally burnse the bladder. The respiratory tract dries out, which means that the normal secretions become very thick, making it difficult to breath. The person dies because of a build-up of toxins, because they can't breathe (due to the thick secretions), because they go into shock or because their blood becomes so thick that it clots in their veins.
No one should go through that.
She was a human being.
Human beings never turn into 'vegetables' no matter their disability or human condition.
If Terri was already gone, why did Michael sue for money to help rehabilitate her?????? Why didn't he just pull the plug and let her go, why sue for money?????
I agree with you 100% with everything you said.
Food and water are artificial means? That was the only "life support" she was on aside from low doses of acetaminophen as found in her autopsy. As a matter of fact, her autopsy report reveals she had an advanced infection of the urinary tract yet she was not receiving any treatment for that painful condition.
She was not on a heart/lung bypass machine, she was not using any assistance of care in breating (no ventilator or trach tube) she was only being given food and water.
Now you may consider food and water to be "life support" however I realize without those two things life would NOT exist on this planet, for any person, animal, plant or organism.
Human beings never turn into 'vegetables' no matter their disability or human condition."
Well said!
Truly a disgusting, inhumane comment which makes it painfully clear that the likes of people like you and boortz think that only human beings that can contribute to society should be allowed to live. She deserved what any other handicapped individual unable to feed themselves and hydrate themselves deserve--food and water.
When someone is brain dead and has a zero percent chance of ever regaining consciousness I consider almost any means of keeping them alive to be artifical and unnatural.
"t she was not receiving any treatment for that painful condition. "
It isn't a painful condition if you have no consciousness.
". She deserved what any other handicapped individual unable to feed themselves and hydrate themselves deserve--food and water."
You are using very deceitful rhetoric. She was not handicapped. It wasn't like she was autistic or in a wheel chair. She was brain-dead with a zero percent chance of ever waking up or regaining consciousness. That is a HUGE difference and i'm sure handicapped people don't enjoy being compared to the brain dead. Nobody thinks people should be discarded when they can no longer contribute to society. Some people find it very unnatural to keep a body alive when the soul has long since left this world and a person has a zero percent chance of ever regaining consciousness. Again families and doctors choose to let patients go thousands of times a year. Most of the time these patients aren't brain dead and haven't spent more than a decade in a coma. What makes this case so different?
Wow. And the Catholic Church there married him anyway.
I am still convinced that there was a Divine message sent to us during the period where we all knew Terri wasn't going to be saved from starvation, and the feeding tube was placed into Pope John Paul II. A great man who taught us for decades about the value of every life.
Here she is a couple years later and on her way to recovery when pal Mikey cashed in the malpractice lottery and turned off the rehab faucets.
Terri after the attack and before bioethicking.
Why would he sue?
Morphine was part of the Exit Protocol and was administered at the last few days. Granted it was also to hasten the death process, but also to reduce the felt pain. Imagine if a dog were treated so inhumanely. She was conscious and alert on Easter Sunday, even so late into the Protocol.
Sorry to do this to you but according to the toxocology section of her autopsy only acetaminophen and basic drugs were found in her system. No morphine, no narcotics not even antibiotics.
The Tox screen is on page 9 of the 39 page autopsy report.
It would have been more humane to give her high doses of morphine to hasten her death. It would have assured little if any pain and a quicker death. Considering that most medical experts agree that death due to dehydration is a very painful way to die, controling the pain of that process would have been humane. However, humane and Michael Schiavo should never be used in the same sentence.
LOL! I was thinking the same thing. Only a self-centered arrogant, vile, love-thyself jerk would do this. I watched the interview he did on NBC Dateline and could not get over how everything was about HIM. I honestly pity his new partner, she is in for a rude awakening.
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.