Posted on 05/07/2005 7:03:09 AM PDT by veronica
MIAMI - The family of a severely brain-damaged woman who died after her feeding tube was removed in March said Friday they still have not been told where her remains will be laid to rest.
Terri Schiavo's parents and siblings, who waged a lengthy court battle over her end-of-life wishes, said on Fox's "Hannity & Colmes" show that her husband is keeping her remains from them.
"They were supposed to tell us, and we still have not heard from ... Michael Schiavo where Terri's been laid," said Terri Schiavo's brother, Bobby Schindler. "Our family expected this. Michael has disobeyed court orders throughout the ordeal and continues to do so today."
Michael Schiavo is under court order to notify the Schindlers of his plans for a memorial service. He has had his wife cremated and has said her ashes would be buried at a family plot in Pennsylvania.
George Felos, Michael Schiavo's attorney, did not immediately return a call Friday night seeking comment.
Terri Schiavo, 41, died March 31 in a Pinellas Park hospice, 13 days after her feeding tube was removed by court order. She suffered brain damage in 1990 after a chemical imbalance caused her heart to stop.
She left no written instructions in the event she became disabled, and her husband said she never would have wanted to be kept alive in what court-appointed doctors called a persistent vegetative state with no hope of recovery.
The Schindlers, however, doubted she had any such end-of-life wishes. They maintained she would benefit from rehabilitation, despite most doctors saying her condition was irreversible
If I had Alzheimer's and was on life support, I hope SOMEONE has the guts to put me out of my misery.
If Terri had signed something like the language in Post 274, she would have been dead years ago. Nobody here would have heard about it, and she certainly wouldn't have been the political football she became.
I was talking about the interpretation of the example directive that you provided.
I do think that a number of errors were made in Terri's case, any one of which, if reversed, would have kept her fed and watered. I think her wishes were NOT respected.
I also advocate against advance directives because the range of medical conditions is so varied. I think a better solution is to name a trusted surrogate.
Lady, I have no idea what you're talking about. I don't read most of the drivel in these posts, but sumtin about ClancyJ's well written and civil post triggered me. If he was responding to you, so what? I quoted and responded to him. I try not to respond to the emotionally disabled.
The indefinite term there is "life support." You have something in mind when you say that, and you can't predict how that term will be interpreted when you are unable to express your wishes.
"Life support" includes food and water, under the statutes of most states.
Interesting choice of words.
if you are asking that someone STARVE and DEHYDRATE you or give you a lethal injection then you are asking them to kill you which is immoral. Such actions will only corrupt the medical profession.
That is where we differ. And that's the argument before us, isn't it?
Oh, I also think it is wrong to cause a person's death by withholding food and water from them, even when the food and water is introduced by an already installed feeding tube. I don't personally think of food and water as "medical treatment," but the law does, and advance directives that call for withholding "life support" are construed as a call to withhold food and water.
Check the law state by state, I doubt they are uniform. I've only checked a few, just for shits and grins.
What I signed is pretty specific. Look, do what you want, but nobdoy better get in the way of what I want.
Note the progression of laws to allow more and more leeway in determining expendibility of the weak/sick.
(Posted by mercyme)
"The 765 law was revised in 1999 to include "end-stage condition" as a reason to withdraw life prolonging procedures along with persistant vegetative state and terminal illness. This was also put into law. Geldart also redefines terminal illness as not just conditions that cause death, but "irreversible" conditions or conditions "with no reasonable chance of recovery". Felos used this definition for the argument that Terri is terminal because she has a "irreversible" neurological condition with no "reasonable hope for recovery".
Geldart also details the the change in law that permitted nutrition and hydration to be considered medical treatment and the changes to life-prolonging procedures in the absence of advanced directives. Project Grace member William Leonard then points out a common scenario in Florida in his article: an elderly couple moves from out of state to Florida and then one spouse dies within a year 's time. Leonard then expands the definition of family to a neighbor, friend or caregiver who is now in the position of articulating the wishes of the elderly person to withdraw medical treatment, rather than "some distant relative".
And indeed the 765 law was changed to allow an "friend" to say that the person wanted life-pronging procedures withdrawn without a written directive. This also effected the outcome of Terri's case. Authors of Project Grace advocate for terminal sedation (Basta), withdraw of nutrition and hydration (Basta), and the refusal of physician to provide "futile" treatment as unethical even with advanced directive asking for treatments (Doty).
They also state that advanced directives providing for treatment should not carry the same weight as directives withdrawing care, and advanced directives should not compel the physican to provide them, regardless if the patient needs them (Doty). Doty is part of the Florida Bioethics Network as well as Project Grace. One of the changes in the law in CB/CB/SB 2228 includes the Bioethics Network as part of the process of withdrawing care."
No speculation, that has been reported as one of the decisions of Judgfe Greer.
We just did our Living Will a few weeks ago. There is exactly what it states (I'm looking at it right now:)"Optional: the statement I have signed below is to apply if I am suffering fom a terminal condition from which death is expected in a matter of months, or if I am suffering from an irreversible condition that renders me unable to make decisions for myself, and life-support treatments are needed to keep me alive.
And I was just commenting on how that language can be construed. You think it means one thing, but you might have a mistaken impression that you will be fed and watered if your last years of life were with Altzheimers. Not only do you have to worry about how that language is construed today, keep in mind that the meaning of the terms changes over time, and can change depending on who is reading them.
Your directive says to stop life support if you have an irreversible condition that renders you unable to make a decision. Strokes, Althzheimers, and some forms of trauma easily satisfy those conditions, and a different reader might be even more liberal in construction than I am, in particular not requiring a causal connection between the medical condition and the inability to make decisions, so ANY irreversible condition coupled with inability to decide will trigger implementation of your directive.
I'm just pointing out that while you know what you want, there is a risk that what you want will not be implemented. It's okay with me. ;-)
My family knows my wishes. What about that is so hard to understand?
I don't think you could be more wrong if you tried...
This beautiful young woman was likely put in that condition by her estranged husband and then he was allowed to finish her off by the state court system.
Your written directive, not what your family knows, is what controls the withhodling of medical treatment, possibly including the withholding of food and water.
There have been cases where a spouse "is sure" the partner would want to continue being fed and watered, but the medical professionals withhold food and water based on the advance directive. The patient is in charge, and the patient's written wishes have priority over the family's comments.
You said you signed the advance directive. What your family knows is therefore and thereby irrelevant.
We are saying - watch how others might interpret your statements.
IF Terri said she would "not want to live that way" when she was 26, it did not mean taking away food and water as feeding tubes and hydration were not deemed medical treatment in those days.
So, her hearsay statement at age 26 at age 41 now means the state can starve and dehydrate her to death when she is not dying?
Apparently the end-of-life panels are continually adjusting the laws of "who lives" and what you state in 2005 may be allowing what they have progressed to in 2010.
Seriously, if you trust your family to carry out your wishes, you are better off without a formal advance directive. Your family is more likely to order what you would want, and can adapt to the situation in ways an advance directive cannot.
I hadn't thought of that angle. We're speculating that the order was to report his plans for interring the remains, but if he has then scattered, then he has no plan for interrment, and CANNOT be in violation of the order. The order would be irrelevant considering the course of conduct.
Schindlers then would be clearly incorrect in asserting that any order has been violated.
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.