Posted on 10/17/2003 2:03:11 PM PDT by mr_griz
AFTER ALL THE YEARS, ALL THE fighting, all the bitter recriminations, there were remarkably few tears on Oct. 15 when Terri Schiavo finally had her feeding tube removed. Maybe the crowd of 80 or so gathered outside the hospice facility in western Florida were too angry to cry, or too numb.
For her part, Carla Sauer was just too tired. "I've been pulling for Terri since 1995," she said as she sank uncertainly onto a three-legged stool to rest the sandal-clad feet she'd been standing on for five hours. "I still can't believe it's come to this."
"This," apparently, is the end of the line in the long fight to keep Ms. Schiavo alive. A Florida judge on Oct. 14 refused two final appeals from her parents, clearing the way for the removal of the feeding tube that's kept her alive for a half-dozen years. Without the tube, the 39-year-old will slowly starve to death. It should take about 14 days.
That's precisely the outcome her husband, Michael, has been pushing for. Claiming that Terri has been a vegetable since she collapsed after a heart attack in 1990, Mr. Schiavo says he is simply honoring a request made by his young bride: That he not allow doctors to prolong her life through artificial means.
Terri's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, doubt she ever made such a request. But even if she did, they argue that a feeding tube is not the same as artificial life support. Her vital organs function on their own, she smiles and laughs at the sound of her loved ones' voices, and she has no terminal illness that threatens her life. If she simply has someone who cares enough to feed her, she could live for another 50 yearsa condition not terribly different from that of thousands of other severely disabled persons.
"She's not a vegetable," Ms. Sauer insisted as she rested her tired feet. "She knows voices, she responds. She can follow commands, and she tries to communicate by blinking her eyelids 'yes' and 'no.'" And then there's the most important detail of all: "We used to feed her with a spoon, and she swallowed on her own."
That was seven years ago, when Ms. Sauer was a nurse at a rehab facility in Largo, Fla. At that time, Ms. Schiavo was getting physical therapy and full-time attention from skilled nurses. But the facility charged $4,000 a month, as Ms. Sauer recalls, and Mr. Schiavo soon chose to discontinue his wife's therapy and move her into the much cheaper hospice system. She's languished there for six years, tethered to a feeding tube while a fierce legal battle swirled around her.
The Schindlers argued that they should be named as Terri's guardians, in part because Mr. Schiavo now has a new girlfriend and a young child. Just because he's ready to move on with his life, they said, he should not be allowed to end Terri's. When a series of judges sided with Mr. Schiavo, the Schindlers appealed to the court of public opinion: They smuggled a video camera into their daughter's roomagainst a judge's ordersto show the world she could still laugh and smile and respond to affection.
With Terri now dying slowly, that video may be the Schindlers' final memory of their daughter. Rather than watching by her bedside, they are parked in a camper across the street. Bob Schindler has been charged with contempt of court, and he and his wife cannot visit their daughter without Mr. Schiavo's permissionor his lawyer.
The family tragedy, as painful as it is to watch, is only a part of a larger picture. Advocates for the disabled fear that Terri Schiavo's death could set a chilling precedent. "This is deplorable," Joni Eareckson Tada told WORLD in the midst of a whirlwind of press conferences and rallies. "What's happening here is just a part of a larger effort to class persons with severe cognitive disabilities as non-persons. Terri is not brain dead, she's not in a coma, she's not terminally ill. We have people who attend our weekend retreats who are more severely disabled. Yet the courts have washed their hands of this. Medical personnel are forbidden to deliver any food or water. She's being denied her right to humane treatment under state law.
"This case is a watershed for people with disabilities," Mrs. Tada said. "Removal of the feeding tube means you are promoting active euthanasia. As a quadriplegic woman, that's a frightening precedent."
I look at the documentation on the site(Terri) and I see only accusations and experts who agree to the other family line.(I would expect that)
I have also seen the sad videos and I understand the emotional nature of this.
I came to the conclusion that it is really none of my business to intervene. To do so would damage the living will system and make it likely that medical professionals will begin to shift all of these decisions to the courts, as they can no longer take the word of a spouse or patient.
This worries me, as our courts have little business deciding these issues. Look what happened with abortion.
Lastly, I have seen some pretty rotten comments on these threads to include death threats and threats of harm to others.
Something smells here and it is not necessarily the court's decision. I would hope that lurkers who have gotten a eye full of this do not get the impression that these sentiments represent FRee Republic.
Because it does not.
Why would you not hold the husband who maimed her, with intent to kill, responsible?
Why would you not hold the judges who support the euthanasia/execution responsible?
Why would you not hold the district attorney who did not investigate her "collapse" because of real battery by her husband, responsible?
Blame them first, and leave Jeb alone. Replace them with law-abiding, life-loving Republicans OR Democrats, instead of the ones on the frontlines of this situation.
So basically, you want us to take everyone who's either harmed her, or been in a position to help her but refused, and hold their feet to the fire -- except for Bush?
No, I don't think so. That's not how it works, sorry.
I sized you up for a troll, and you're convincing me I was right. If you'd even bothered to look, you'd have noticed that I've already posted the links -- in THIS thread -- as have others.
But nope. You just want to shoot from the lip, and play your stupid games.
Well guess what? I ain't playing your game.
Bye now.
Convinced?
I'm not so sure that's the right word for it, but whatever. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming. Take a look at what the Thomas More Law Center and the other experts that were solicited by Bush had to say.
They said the same things we've been saying in these threads.
This stuff is so obvious that you'd think they'd be embarassed to even pretend there's some controversy. But, I guess having the power of life and death in your hands -- with no one willing to challenge it -- can go to a fella's head. So, they get cocky. They pretend the obvious lie is the truth.
That's life in this corrupt little ball o' dirt.
I haven't seen any of that. Do you have any links to support that claim?
Living wills are fine, and should be written and used by people...but when it gets down to your own daughter (and I have three who are in their twenties) being starved and dehydrated to death...all of that goes out the window in my opinion.
Legal documents are only good and meaningful in an environment where the basic tennants of morality, honor and common sense reign. This case is one where those principles are being walked on IMHO...and some people will in fact fight to keep that from happening because it represents a drirection that is the antithesis of everything this nation and its legal system was built upon.
In this case, it is the responsibility of the parents and family members to try and save Terri...if it came down to it, and their only recourse was to physically take her from that tortuous death...well, for the reasons I have already opined on this thread, I would support them in that decision.
Just my opinion.
Is there anything we can learn from this?
When they came for the Catholics?
When they came for the Baptists?
When they came for the fundamentalists?
When they came for the agnostics?
When they came for the physically disabled?
When they came for the mentally disabled?
Just something for all of us to think about -- is this picture larger than we currently see it?
The burden must be on the other side in this...and they have not shown anything more than hearsay at the best...and that from a suspect witness IMHO.
...and for this the judge is willing to kill Terri. Shameful..and dangerously wrong on its face.
Hearsay evidence from husbands or others who may or may not have the other persons best interests at heart just don't cut it. At least it shouldn't. Think of the possibilities:
'Uh Judge, to be honest with you I tried to kill her, but now she's only in a coma. But I can get my sister and friend to swear that she said that if the time ever came where ahe was in a coma she would rather starve and die of thirst.'
If it were my daughter she would have been out of hospice a long time ago.
That is 3 replies to me, and still no answer. A link is hardly an answer to a simple question. Was is a statement she made verbally? A written statement? Her parents interpretation of her wishes? The doctors interpretation of her actions and movements?
Is it really that hard for you to answer the simple question. You said it was known that she wants to live, I merely asked you how you come to that conclusion. This is not a game, I am curious, as that would probably change my mind. I have yet to hear that claim made or substantiated - that she has expressed her wished to live.
I am aware of much of the speculation about her wishes, so you do not need to point me to that.
You are the one playing a game. My thoughts are clear and have been on every Shiavo thread I post to. I would error on the side of the individual rather than on government interference in medical decisions. I see a different slippery slope that others here - I see one where 3rd parties and the government try to make medical decisions for individual on the claim that they are promoting life.
If there is abmibuity, life should always be chosen. But if a clear intention is expressed by an individual, it should not be overidden by the State....regardless of the protestations of well meaning persons.
Any one at all.
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.