Posted on 02/25/2005 7:57:51 AM PST by AliVeritas
Sometimes even newspaper columnists change their minds.
In the matter of Terri Schiavo, the permanently brain-damaged former suburban Philadelphia woman caught in a life-and-death tug-of-war, this columnist has changed his.
I no longer so blithely believe Schiavo's feeding tubes should be pulled and her life allowed to end. I'm no longer so sure her parents do not deserve a say in their daughter's future. I no longer am totally comfortable assuming her husband, Michael, who now has two children by another woman, is acting unselfishly.
That's not to say I have changed my opinion about the right of all of us to die with dignity when life has lost all meaning. But for Terri Schiavo, who lingers in a Florida nursing home, the devil is in the details, uncomfortable details that raise sticky moral dilemmas.
Detail 1: Terry Schiavo is not dying. She is not being kept alive artificially. Her heart beats and lungs breathe without help. She cannot swallow food or water. Once the feeding tube is removed, she would slowly starve to death over days or weeks.
Detail 2: Schiavo is not comatose. Her eyes open, and she sometimes responds to stimuli. Doctors say there is no brain activity and her responses are simply reflexive. Her parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, want to believe otherwise.
(Excerpt) Read more at philly.com ...
The thread I saw was titled "Judge orders continued feeding for Florida woman" and I'd rather not post a link to that trash but you can find the thread in their Late Breaking News forum, it has over 100 replies. Opening post was 2/23/05 and the topic id # is 1261025. It now has a few more pro-Terri people---but very few.
All we know is what we read. But several nurses have suggested that she responds to conversation, that she welcomes any kind of stimulation. And there is some reason to think that she could swallow small amounts of liquid or food.
What that suggests is that she could have been weaned from the feeding tube if the nurses had been allowed to feed her.
But they are not. They are not allowed to feed her or talk to her, and several of them have been fired for disobeying these orders.
Thank you. As I thought.
She has been neglected for 15 years, for the most part.
This is such a travesty.
Have you a candidate in mind?
Where would the authority come from, a local, regional or national body of law?
http://bbs.crystalcathedral.org/ubb/Forum2/HTML/001904.html
Please join this forum and help save Terri! Thanks, FV
Please Ping your list, OfF.
Perhaps one needs to read further.
WOW!!!! THAT IS AMAZING!
For instance, in the paragraph below he fails to mention the 1991 bone scan, showing Terri with all those broken bones at different stages of healing. Such evidence suggests the possibility that Terri was physically abused by Michael Schiavo is far more than conjecture or inuendo.
"Detail 4: Unproven allegations that Schiavo might have suffered physical trauma immediately before her heart stopped for several minutes in 1990, leading to brain damage, have not been fully investigated. The Schindlers have long suggested their son-in-law strangled their daughter; Michael Schiavo's lawyer says the abuse allegations have never been substantiated. Before pulling the plug on this woman, don't these questions need to be fully answered?'
"The abuse allegations against Michael Schiavo may be nothing but scurrilous rumor spread to damage his credibility. But what if there is even a tiny chance he is guilty of abuse? Should such a person be in a position to decide this life-and-death issue?"
Attorney David Gibbs visited Terri last night with the dad, Bob Schindler. Cheryl Ford wrote the following:Terri goes Goo~Goo eyes over Attorney Gibbs
By Cheryl Ford RN
February 25, 2005
Last night at hospice Terri's father, Robert Schindler and Attorney Gibbs visited with Terri. Mr. Schindler was the first to enter Terri's room, approaching Terri on her right. As always, Terri was delighted to see her Dad until Mr. Schindler announced that Mr. Gibbs was with him.
Mr. Gibbs moved closer to Terri's left greeting her with, "Hello Terri."
Terri, hearing Mr. Gibb's deep voice immediately turned to her left to look at him. Terri's Dad stated that once she eyed Mr. Gibbs that was the end of his visit with her because she was no longer interested in anything he had to say to her..."she was goo-goo eyes over Attorney Gibbs."
Mr. Schindler then exclaimed, "Terri, Terri, look at me. I've come here to see you as well and now you cannot take your eyes off of Attorney Gibbs, what am I chopped liver?" Terri responded with laughter to her father's comment but her eyes remained focused on Mr. Gibbs.
Bob said,"Well, Cheryl that's the last time I will be taking Mr. Gibbs along with me since my daughter did not hear anything I had to say once he had her attention."
*blush* I guess I feel so strongly about it, I jumped to posting without fully reading. oops. At least he gets that part, too. Although I was led under the impression from other older stories that Terri could swallow the tiniest amounts of liquids...
Ideally, the agent is person to be euthanized, either still capable of expressing the wish, or having executed a clear directive in advance. In cases of an infant or young child, the parents should decide.
The idea of the government/courts ultimately making the determination to euthanize is not inherently more worrisome than the idea of the government/courts being able to force people to stay alive for years while suffering and incapacitated, when the people in question do not believe this is right and do not believe that their own or taxpayers' or insurers' money should be financing the endeavor. My life belongs to me -- not to the government, not to Hillary's village -- and it should be my decision under what circumstances I wish it to terminate.
Terri ping! If anyone would like to be added to or removed from my Terri ping list, please let me know by FReepmail!
So you would have a patient pull his own plug, or failing that a parent could inject the overdose of painkiller or an older child could turn off the valve on the drip I.V. connected to his elderly parent's collapsing vein?
ROFL at Terri making eyes at the attorney! :0D I wonder if she knows he is actively trying to save her.
Thats a GREAT IDEA!! and I am sure she can respond.The Lie Detector responds to bodily reactions. Also, just her body english will answer for her. As the writer points out she really wants to live to survive thru what she has endured at the hands of the wife abuser, liar and possibly alot more serious attempted acts.
Doctors should be able to do this, with proper legal authorization. Elderly people have plenty of time to put their wishes in writing, so it wouldn't be unreasonable to require that. A severely disabled infant obviously never has that capacity, so the parents should have the legal right to make the decision.
The government, through the courts, should never have the power to force parents to watch their severely disabled infant/child suffer when it has no realistic hope of recovery. Nor should the government be able to force elderly people to suffer, or force their families to watch them spend months or years as virtual vegetables, when the patient has executed a will clearly indicating that s/he doesn't want this.
My mother has executed such a will, and she is counting on me to make sure her wishes are followed. I don't want any meddlesome courts or self-appointed anti-euthanasia activists interfering with her wishes being carried out.
Just heard on the ABC radio news. "Judge" Greer has spoken, the feeding tube can be removed.
Somebody better pull an "Elian Gonzales" and get her to a safe house.
Ping
Just heard on the ABC radio news. "Judge" Greer has spoken, the feeding tube can be removed.
Somebody better pull an "Elian Gonzales" and get her to a safe house.
How can you be "very" pro-euthanasia? What does that mean?
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.