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 years—a 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 room—against a judge's orders—to 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 permission—or 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."
Your comments would be true if and only if you believed what I copied and pasted above.
What if the husband was believed to be truthful.
Would you allow him to make that decision then?
And BTW, where are the statements of defense against these personal attacks he has been taking? I looked for some archived stuff and all I could find were more character attacks and repeats of the same which all stemmed from the other side of this issue.
This is so, so one sided.
Yup, I was. I confess. I played "Feed the Troll".
No one wins at that game. When I feed the troll, I waste my time, and the troll enjoys it.
Well spoken. Among the things making it hard to carry the torches of goodness and freedom, are the numbness people feel for the blessings of these things. We've GOT to take action against the evils of our time, to preserve what we have before it is too late.
We (we in the generic sense) have become unattached and disaffected. What could be worse than September 11, after all? What could be worse than any number of the things we have seen? We are a hodgepodge of slow boiled frogs; liquid comprised of our daily lives and all the lazy trappings in; heat provided courtesy of calculating politicians and anti-moralists with their agendas that grow more hideous with each generation. When I step back, then back in, I can’t believe this is happening. But then I can believe it: We’ve been on a complacent slow boil for some time and it's trending downward. This is where we've been, where we're at and the direction we are going.
However, I (like you) believe that soon “it will be our turn to either show that commitment...or lose our liberty and way of life… the time is more nearly upon us than most imagine.” You are right, and I believe we will win.
It is ambigious.
When did Michael first state that those were her wishes? Does anyone know? I am curious if it was before, during, or after the civil trial for damages.
It is speculated often that he made the claim after the civil case, does anyone know if that is factually supported. I think that would have been a key fact.
(I have to say, as one who would support anothers right to die, I am turned off from Teri's case my the many who throw false and over the top accusations at anyone who might think otherwise. The notion that Teri did actually express her wishes to her husband and that she would have not wanted this type of care - and he is fighting for what she actually wanted does not even seem to be a consideration or a possibility. I think there are many here who would not agree even if those were her wishes and are using this case to promote their own causes.)
Not that I care to post to anyone who was involved in that other thread (because of the vitriol), but you weren't involved at the time, so--I spoke of no documents. I just looked the matter up by doing a search. Anyone here could do that. If I had given sources, they would immediately have been discredited, such was the hysteria and lack of logic going on. If you are "coming at me" as those on the thread last night did, I have no interest in getting into such a fruitless and vicious snake pit of idiocy again. I hope you are not doing so. Do you know that people on that thread actually accused me of being some kind of insider in the case, just because I posted what I had read and because Strela I and were in favor of a Living Will? If you aren't aware of that, go back and read it. It is Out of Control. At one point they even ridiculed my dead mother, for pete's sake. I have never seen the likes of it on any web board at any time; it was beyond the realm of human decency.
If you would like to see for yourself what I saw, do a search. Go to news.google.com and search for "terri schiavo" "cerebral cortex". The reason I did the search was that on some previous search I had seen mention of the cerebral cortex's having been a major factor in Terri's condition.
I'm sure the facts will surface at some time in the future, in the NEJM or somewhere else, since this case is an important one. But as for now, people are so riled up that they can't separate fact from rumor--not here, not in the media, not anywhere. (This article, for instance, states that Terri was receiving therapy to the tune of $4000 a month at some point. It doesn't mention the duration. Other sources refute she had any. My last post was in response to someone who pointed that out.) The whole thing is a horrific situation, but no one helps anyone else by being so irrational and rude.
I hope you find what you are looking for.
Tag you're it.
Any one at all.
Tres drole.
How about a message number?
You're pretty sad, ya know? You claim there are death threats, and when I ask where, you wave your arms around and say they're everywhere?
WTF?
Better question is WHY-TF I'm letting you troll me around the pond.
I guess I'll stop now.
Bye.
I was speaking in generalites.
However, I could care less if it is one sided. The state should not be issuing death warrants in America when there is no living will or written and informed consent. Judges are not Gods and where you egt the idea that they are is beyond me. Nothing in writing, no starvation and dehydration when there are disputes amongst both family members and Doctors.
Think about it, Governor Bush orders that a murderer on death row be starved and dehydrated in fulfillment of his death sentence. How long before the ACLU is screaming cruel and unusual punishment?
My heart is sick and bone tired.......this is so wrong!
I agree!
It should not have come to that. And it should not come to that is the future.(This is my concern)
But it doesn't interest me. I've seen the woman with my own two eyes on numerous occasions. She is not a vegetable, there is a person in there.
The husband is a scumbag for a very simple reason. He denied his own wife the tools to recover.
He has a new woman and children, he should simply take them, move on and let her blood relatives take on the resposibility of caring for her. There would be no skin off his neck, none at all.
Having said all of that, anybody that advocates the state ordering the starvation and dehydration of a human being when ambiguity abounds holds views that are simply not reconciliable with mine.
I pushed the button on one of them posted to me earier today.
It certainly should not have but now that we have arrived at this disgusting juncture, we have to choose a side and take a stand. I stand for life and the individual be they disabled or unborn.
And it should not come to that is the future.(This is my concern)
Aquiescence here will set a legal precedent. As Roe, Doe and the "Wall of Separation" have shown, legal precedents never get narrower they expand in scope. I think you're on the wrong side here friend.
Thanks so much for this information. It jives with this timeline:
Events in the legal battle between the husband and parents of Terri Schiavo after she collapsed of a heart attack on Feb. 25, 1990.
November 1992: Terri's husband, Michael, wins malpractice suit that accused doctors of misdiagnosing his wife; jury awards more than more than $700,000 for her care, Michael receives an additional $300,000.
Feb. 14, 1993: Terri Schiavo's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, have a falling out with Michael over the money and Terri's care.
May 1998: Michael Schiavo files petition to remove Terri's feeding tube.
Feb. 11, 2000: Circuit Judge George W. Greer rules feeding tube can be removed.
April 20, 2001: U.S. District Judge Richard Lazzara grants the Schindlers a stay.
April 24, 2001: Feeding tube is removed from Terri Schiavo.
April 26, 2001: Circuit Judge Frank Quesada orders doctors to reinsert the tube.
April 30, 2001: Lawyers for Michael Schiavo file emergency motion with appellate court asking it to order removal of Terri's feeding tube.
Oct. 17, 2001: 2nd District Court of Appeal rules that five doctors can examine Terri to determine whether she has any hope of recovery. The Schindlers pick two doctors, Michael Schiavo picks two, and the court the fifth.
Feb. 13, 2002: Mediation fails; Michael Schiavo again seeks to be allowed to remove Terri's feeding tube.
October 2002: Three doctors, including the one appointed by the court, testify that Terri is in a vegetative state with no hope of recovery. The Schindlers' two doctors say she can recover.
Nov. 22, 2002: Judge Greer orders feeding tube removed.
April 4, 2003: Schindlers' attorneys ask Second District Court of Appeal panel to overturn Greer's ruling.
June 6, 2003: 2nd District Court of Appeal upholds Greer.
Aug. 22, 2003: Florida Supreme Court declines to hear case.
Sept. 2, 2003: Schindlers seek intervention by a federal court.
Oct. 13, 2003: Protesters and Schindlers begin vigil at hospice.
Oct. 14, 2003: 2nd District Court of Appeal again refuses to block tube removal.
Oct. 15, 2003: Tube removed.
- The Associated Press http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/florida/sfl-fcomatime16oct16,0,7930197.story?coll=sfla-news-florida
So she had therapy for about three years, it would seem.
There is no written statement. There is only the hearsay word of the husband who has plenty of opportunity for motves that are not in Terri's best health interests.
In addition, if there was a clearly stated intention for no life support, that usually applies to people who are brain dead and not conscious. This is not the case with Terri so killing her is at best assisted suiicide, which is also not legal.
Any casual review of both sides of this case simply reeks with ambiguity regarding Terri's condition and wishes concerning her state ordereed death. Therefore, as you say, life is the only viable and moral choice.
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.