Posted on 03/23/2005 2:34:59 PM PST by gopwinsin04
State officials say they are considering removing Terri Schiavo from hospice, by force if necessary, despite numerous court orders upholding the removal of the artificial nutrition tube that has kept her alive for 15 years.
Lucy Hadl, secretary of the Department of Children and Families, said Wednesday morning that her staff is relying on a state law that gives the department the authority to intervene on behalf of a vulnerable adult who is 'suffering from abuse or neglect that presents a risk of death or serious physical injury.'
Hadl said that the DCF would have to file a petition in order to remove Schiavo, but that 'it doesn't mean we'd have to have judicial approval in advance of taking the action if we believed it met the threshold for doing it.'
Hadl said that seven years of court rulings backing Schiavo's husband Michael, in his contention that Terri Schiavo did not wish to be kept alive artificially would not stop the DCF from taking action.
'We're not compelled to look at prior judicial proceedings,' Hadl said.
What we are compelled to look at is the presenting circumstances and any allegiations of abuse and neglect that we have recieved. So we have to deal with those and fufill out statutory responsibility.'
(Excerpt) Read more at palmbeachpost.com ...
Horrible excuse of a life? The alternative is death and unless you've been there and are able to report back to us on all of it's splendor and wonderfulness, we can only assume that living is superior in every sense.
Have you died and come back to life? [If so, please don't look me up in particular, trust me, in that case I'll gladly be your bitch].
What do you mean? She's going to heaven right?
Is that better than life, to live with the Lord in complete bliss and happiness?
You give me some hope. Thanks.
Unnatural means? What would those be? Food and water - wow, that's really unnatural.
Terri's head must be ready to explode with you and all the others inside it who know exactly what's going on there.
If she really had the death wish you arrogantly assume, she would have been gone long ago. If she didn't want to be fed and didn't want to live in her condition, why, when offered food and water orally, did she accept it?
You do know there are nurses who have made sworn statements that they have fed Terri by mouth and that she swallowed it, don't you? Oh, that's right - they were there in person, but they're lying - and you know better because, well, just because you're you.
Kool aid drinker if you will.
Its just a republican game to drum up votes from pro-life people without having to do anything meaningful about the American abortion holocaust!
Just a few thoughts
A Diagnosis is sometimes used for medical benefits as opposed to a true descriptive of symptoms.
PVS is not a diagnosis in the sense that strep is. It is based on a list of symptoms instead of growing microbes in a dish.
I am not familar with PET Scans, but I understand it is the gold standard for a PVS diagnosis.
There is a reason Terri has not had a PET Scan.
Who benefits if Terri has a PVS diagnosis?
Does she receive Medicare or Private Insurance benefits? Medicare is very, very picky about meeting the criteria for any benefits it pays out.
I would look very carefully at what benefits Medicare paid out. I would look at dates. For instance, when did tube feedings begin? Tube feeding are the big money makers. But the need for a tube feeding needs to be certified by the attending physician. Hospice care, wheelchairs, etc. ALL need to meet detailed criteria. Some of these need to be recertified after a period of time. Who is her attending and who has been signing the certification. Anything filed with Medicare must be backed up by hard copy in the treating or hospice facility.
If Medicare or any other insurance company has paid benfits to Terri, it may explain the lack of testing. Testing may reveal some benefits are not covered. Make no mistake medicare and Insurance are money makers. No one wants a private pay--they want an insured patient.
This may be where the money trail is. This hospice is already in deep doo-doo with Medicare. They already owe Medicare big bucks.
I'm in the middle with another one, and soon I will be taking my own advice. But this beast needs to be starved and dehydrated.
You eat food through a tube attached to stomach?
From one mortal to another, let's try to see the virtues of living, and condem those who'd cut it short due to inconvenience.
That the state, acting in concert with her 'guardian's' wishes to starve her to death does not ring an alarm with you only lessens my perception of those with whom I consider fellow patriots. May your chains rest lightly............and all that.
Unless there is a new kind of human being we take food and water in by mouth, not by a tube in the gut!
If she didn't want to be fed and didn't want to live in her condition, why, when offered food and water orally, did she accept it?
You do know there are nurses who have made sworn statements that they have fed Terri by mouth and that she swallowed it, don't you?
So if this is the case what is the problem with removing the feeding tube???
You want FORCE a woman who is in a PVS to keep living in that state aganist her own wishes?
Who's absurd?
for instance:
http://www.medicare.gov/publications/pubs/pdf/hosplg.pdf
Treatment to cure your terminal illness. As a hospice patient, you can get comfort care to help you cope with your illness, not cure it.
Comfort care includes drugs for symptom control and pain relief, physical care, counseling, and other hospice services (see page 5).
Hospice uses medicine, equipment, and supplies to make you as comfortable and pain-free as possible. Medicare will not pay for treatment to cure your illness. You should talk with your doctor if you are thinking about potential treatment to cure your illness.
As a hospice patient, you always have the right to stop getting hospice care and go back to your regular doctor or health plan
And that right is absolute? There are no circumstances where that legal right is subject to review?
Yeah it happened in this case, about 20 times or so.
The judges ruled that Terri's wish was that she did not want to live in a PVS.
One more--who has been certifying Terri as Terminally ill?
(Private insurance companies are pretty much in line with Medicare, so here is a good guide)
http://www.medicare.gov/publications/pubs/pdf/hosplg.pdf
You can get hospice care as long as your doctor certifies that you are terminally ill and probably have less than six months to live.
Even if you live longer than six months, you can get hospice care as long as your doctor recertifies that you are terminally ill. Hospice care is given in periods of care. As a hospice patient, you can get hospice care for two 90-day periods followed by an unlimited number of 60-day periods.
At the start of each period of care, your doctor must certify that you are terminally ill in order for you to continue getting hospice care. A period of care starts the day you begin to get hospice care. It ends when your 90 or 60-day period is up.
If your doctor recertifies that you are terminally ill, your care continues through another period of care.
Note: Periods of care are important. They are a time when your doctor recertifies that you still need and remain eligible for hospice care.
If you have to ask me this question, then you are stupendously uninformed about all the facts, in which case I respectfully suggest you inform yourself a little better before you make a bigger fool out of yourself.
Why do you think people are getting arrested outside the hospice who are trying to get in to give her WATER? Judge Greer has ruled that not only should the feeding tube be removed, but that NO ONE is allowed to attempt to feed her orally, and she was not allowed to have therapy to teach her to swallow effectively.
MANY people do.
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.