The Terri Shiavo Controversy - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

03/23/2005 04:43:51 PM · #202

Originally posted by GoldBerry:

I never said he should stick by her through 15 years of this, I did say it would make much more sense to divorce her. If that's still unclear, PM me, and I can send you pictures of me beating a dead horse.

:-)

What is abundantly clear in this instance is that you cannot even begin to fathom the reasoning behind this man's persistance in ensuring that his wife's wishes are met.

No need to PM me on this issue... I am not a proponent of striking deceased members of the equine family, ergo I have no photos.

Ray

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

03/23/2005 04:46:06 PM · #203

Usually, hope for recovery from a cerebral insult in within the first year after the initial trauma to the brain. It appears that all of the court cases have already taken into account the testimony of doctors who have declared her to be "brain dead." With the exception of brain stem function that keeps her breathing on her own, I doubt very much if there is ever any hope of recovery to any degree for Terri, or any sentient consciousness. Medical studies must have been done showing that necrotic (dead) tissue had replaced her bilateral cerebral cortex and that there was greatly reduced blood flow to those parts of her brain.

It appears too that she has lost the vital instinct for self nutrition and hydration if she is not able to eat on her own. From a medical standpoint, a doctor would have to ask what the goals of keeping this woman "alive" are. If there are no more goals, if she has been unable to sustain life on her own to some extent or recover from her injuries after such a long time with no hope for recovery, it appears that she has already passed on and we just keeping the mechanical functions of life going, rather than supporting a soul.

LoudDog

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

03/23/2005 04:54:46 PM · #204

Originally posted by GoldBerry:

Let me know if I'm wrong here. Since he chose to move on with his life at some point, you feel he gave up the right to make the medical choices a husband has for his wife.
However, since I'm pretty sure this fight over the feeding tube started before he moved on and started a life with another woman (correct me if I'm wrong) then please answer my previous question of, what was the reason for him not being allowed to make the choice before he moved on?
Him "abandoning" her is a good talking point now, but that argument didn't even exist when this first started thus it really shouldn't be relevant today. He has every right to move on.

I apologize if I had you wrong, but based on wording in previous posts it seems as if you thought down of him to move on with his life (abandon is a pretty strong word).

PS, Ron, thanks for your answers. I would never expect my wife to stick by me like that, and I don't know if I'd be able to abandon my dream of having a family. I hope I never have to make that descion.

Message edited by author 2005-03-23 16:56:03.

karmat

Apple iPhone 7

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

03/23/2005 04:58:10 PM · #205

When I took my vows, I said for better or for worse (this would definitely be worse), for richer or poorer, and in sickness and in health. Would I sit by my husband and take care of him for 15 years? Oh yea. 20, 25, or 30 if necessary. Unlike many of you, I have that experience, only it was my father, not my husband, and it was only 2 and a half years, but we were saddened when he died, not relieved.

He died with a feeding tube in place. So, if a feeding tube is life support, why is my daddy dead?????

If feeding is life support, everyone in this forum is on life support. She couldn't feed herself, so by ruling that she couldn't have food and water, we, as society, have said that a person's value is based on whether or not they can lift their hand to their mouth.

This is just one case. Should it have remained private? perhaps. But it has far reaching ramifications. There are millions in similar situations to terri. I would imagine some of them are, for lack of a better word, scared right now. But, it doesn't matter, because according to some posts, Terri (and assumedly others in similiar situations) can't feel anything and don't anything (which begs the question, "Why in the heck does it matter if the husband does what she allegedly wanted done?").

Persistant vegetative state. We (society) assume that means absolutely no activity, just a lump of flesh and bones lying in the bed. But wait a minute, that would be a coma, wouldn't it? A PVS or chronic state means there are little to no expectations of a full recovery of the physical state. You do realize that Terri (and others with this diagnosis/prognosis)may very well be cognizant of some of the things around her. Again, my personal experience -- One incident of my father. He was ill, and needed to be hospitalized. We spoke of "taking" him in an ambulance, etc. etc. The more we talked, the more aggitated he became, almost to the point of being beligerent. My mom realized what was happening and simply said, "Davis, you need to go to the hospital. We are not, and we will never, put you in a nursing home away from us." He calmed down immediately.

As far as the atrophy and fluid and stuff. Yea, you don't allow "use" of soemthing for 15 years, it will atrophy. Unfortunately, the past week is just a culmination of several years of what I feel is neglect and abuse. The "world" has been hearing this for a week. I ahve been following it for over a year. Others have been watching it for years. When Terri passes on, it will not be the end of the situation, unfortunately.

I know I will never change some of ya'lls mind. I don't know that I intend to (but would love to ;)). I consider it a "value of human life" issue, because I feel that all life is special and sacred -- regardless of the quality of said life.

I do sincerely pray, for several reasons, that you and those that you love never find yourself in this situation.

GoldBerry

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

03/23/2005 04:58:27 PM · #206

Originally posted by RayEthier:

What is abundantly clear in this instance is that you cannot even begin to fathom the reasoning behind this man's persistance in ensuring that his wife's wishes are met.

Insults aside, was it her wish? This is the first time I've read about that...in this thread or on the news. I'm not being facetious, I really haven't read that up to this point.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

03/23/2005 05:01:35 PM · #207

Originally posted by GoldBerry:

That's beautiful Ron! Me not having a relationship like that I can't answer Louddog in a specific way but I'd like to think I'd feel the same as you - I'd never want to leave. Here's to hoping!

I can't honestly answer for myself either. But you've stated your position well, and I have no argument with your wanting to do that, unless your partner had really explicitly asked you not to. But I would want no part of the decision ... that's your's.

But what I feel is overlooked by many is that, in the USA, we make allowances for people holding to domewhat different belief systems and standards of ethical conduct, and we allow them the freedom to practice their beliefs as long as it meets some minimum legal threshold. This country was first colonized, and then then based its demand for independence, on the principle that the State and the public should have as little as possible to do with the private moral and ethical decisions we constantly make in family life.

Mr. Shiavo's position apparently satisfies that baseline, according to a whole bunch of people especially trained to evaluate such legal and ethical questions.

Most of Mr. Shiavo's opponents appear to be more concerned with overturning those principles of tolerance and freedom, in favor of imposing a Fundamentalist Christian ethos on the entire population, regardless of whether that conflicts with others' principles and beliefs.

If people want a theocracy, I strongly suggest they go buy some other country and set one up, or move somewhere where they believe in that form of government -- Iran or Saudi Arabia come to mind as current exemplars of that style of "life."

The USA is founded on principles of religious freedom, and I really view these attempts to undermine our nation of laws to be quite un-American. To quote some of the folks who used to yell at me, "America -- love it or leave it!"

RonB

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

03/23/2005 05:04:51 PM · #208

Meaning no disrespect Olyuzi, let me highlight what I believe to be the troublesome parts of what you say:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Usually, hope for recovery from a cerebral insult in within the first year after the initial trauma to the brain. It appears that all of the court cases have already taken into account the testimony of doctors who have declared her to be "brain dead." With the exception of brain stem function that keeps her breathing on her own, I doubt very much if there is ever any hope of recovery to any degree for Terri, or any sentient consciousness. Medical studies must have been done showing that necrotic (dead) tissue had replaced her bilateral cerebral cortex and that there was greatly reduced blood flow to those parts of her brain.

It appears too that she has lost the vital instinct for self nutrition and hydration if she is not able to eat on her own. From a medical standpoint, a doctor would have to ask what the goals of keeping this woman "alive" are. If there are no more goals, if she has been unable to sustain life on her own to some extent or recover from her injuries after such a long time with no hope for recovery, it appears that she has already passed on and we just keeping the mechanical functions of life going, rather than supporting a soul.

See, there are just too many Should's and If's and Doubts.

I don't know all the "facts", but then, I don't need to - I know enough to know what I would do if my wife were in that same condition.

And, to be honest, though others may be swayed by the medical standpoint or the legal standpoint, I am not, in this case. I am bothered by the moral implications of someone deciding to end the life of another human by forced dehydration and starvation in this manner. You say a doctor would have to ask what the goals are for keeping her "alive". I ask, if the goal is to end her life, as it appears to be, then why not just give her a lethal injection instead of killing her by degrees?

GoldBerry

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

03/23/2005 05:07:27 PM · #209

Originally posted by louddog:

I apologize if I had you wrong, but based on wording in previous posts it seems as if you thought down of him to move on with his life (abandon is a pretty strong word).

One last time, :-) I just don't get why he hasn't divorced her - That's it. I don't get it I don't get it I don't get it. There's still been no insight offered up as to why he never divorced her. I'd like to know what his lawyers have been saying to keep winning his battles cause I can't wrap my wee brain around it yet.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

03/23/2005 05:14:20 PM · #210

Originally posted by RonB:

I ask, if the goal is to end her life, as it appears to be, then why not just give her a lethal injection instead of killing her by degrees?

I agree, but it's against the law in every state but Oregon, where doctors can prescibe medication for the patient to take themselves (not much use in a case like this).

The only time it's legal (in the USA) to euthanize a human is in carrying out the death penalty.

I once had a friend with Hodgkins in remission -- he kept a stash of sleeping pills and some whiskey around in case it ever came back ...

Ideally, we'd each be allowed to make the choice according to our own values. The real problem is that so many of us (including myself) are too reticent to face the possibility of this happening to us, so we don't make our wishes crystal clear with a written "living will" or advance directive for medical care.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

03/23/2005 05:18:09 PM · #211

Originally posted by GoldBerry:

Originally posted by louddog:
I apologize if I had you wrong, but based on wording in previous posts it seems as if you thought down of him to move on with his life (abandon is a pretty strong word).

One last time, :-) I just don't get why he hasn't divorced her - That's it. I don't get it I don't get it I don't get it. There's still been no insight offered up as to why he never divorced her. I'd like to know what his lawyers have been saying to keep winning his battles cause I can't wrap my wee brain around it yet.

As I understand it, he does believe that he is carrying out Terri's wish to not be maintained in this state. There's otherwise no rationale for not divorcing her and transferring guardianship to her parents/siblings.

That he was offered considerable sums of money to do just this lends some credence to the concept that he is carrying out Terri's wishes.

Message edited by author 2005-03-23 17:18:49.

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

03/23/2005 05:20:50 PM · #212

Ron, I wrote those words you highlighted because of my ignorance of the facts of the case, not due to the ignorance of those health care professionals or legal/ethical experts involved. For 8 court cases to have all decided in favor of Michael Shiavo, then those experts are certain in their decisions about recovery to any extent, and of brain death.

I don't believe that this would be forced dehydration/starvation. In fact, it may be the most ethical and compassionate thing that can be done. Usually, hospice workers do not believe in hydration or nutrition for terminally ill patients. If she is unable to survive on her own, show no want of fluid or food, and have no brain activity then she is terminally ill. In the US death is determined legally by cessation of brain activity. In this case, the only activity she seems to have (my use of the word "seems" is because of my ignorance of the facts of her case) is lower brain stem function...that is, the parts of the brain that keep lungs and heart functioning.

I am happy to hear that you are so loyal to your wife, and that is very commendable. It appears that Michael Shiavo has too been as loyal and may, at this time, after so many years, see things now so that the most compassionate thing to do would be to let nature take its course and let her be. If this woman were to have any sentience it may even be that she is suffering and that she would wish to let her body die. We don't know, so let nature takes its course.

Originally posted by RonB:

Meaning no disrespect Olyuzi, let me highlight what I believe to be the troublesome parts of what you say:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Usually, hope for recovery from a cerebral insult in within the first year after the initial trauma to the brain. It appears that all of the court cases have already taken into account the testimony of doctors who have declared her to be "brain dead." With the exception of brain stem function that keeps her breathing on her own, I doubt very much if there is ever any hope of recovery to any degree for Terri, or any sentient consciousness. Medical studies must have been done showing that necrotic (dead) tissue had replaced her bilateral cerebral cortex and that there was greatly reduced blood flow to those parts of her brain.

It appears too that she has lost the vital instinct for self nutrition and hydration if she is not able to eat on her own. From a medical standpoint, a doctor would have to ask what the goals of keeping this woman "alive" are. If there are no more goals, if she has been unable to sustain life on her own to some extent or recover from her injuries after such a long time with no hope for recovery, it appears that she has already passed on and we just keeping the mechanical functions of life going, rather than supporting a soul.

See, there are just too many Should's and If's and Doubts.

I don't know all the "facts", but then, I don't need to - I know enough to know what I would do if my wife were in that same condition.

And, to be honest, though others may be swayed by the medical standpoint or the legal standpoint, I am not, in this case. I am bothered by the moral implications of someone deciding to end the life of another human by forced dehydration and starvation in this manner. You say a doctor would have to ask what the goals are for keeping her "alive". I ask, if the goal is to end her life, as it appears to be, then why not just give her a lethal injection instead of killing her by degrees?

Judith Polakoff

Nikon D7000

03/23/2005 05:43:30 PM · #213

Originally posted by GeneralE:

But what I feel is overlooked by many is that, in the USA, we make allowances for people holding to domewhat different belief systems and standards of ethical conduct, and we allow them the freedom to practice their beliefs as long as it meets some minimum legal threshold. This country was first colonized, and then then based its demand for independence, on the principle that the State and the public should have as little as possible to do with the private moral and ethical decisions we constantly make in family life.

Mr. Shiavo's position apparently satisfies that baseline, according to a whole bunch of people especially trained to evaluate such legal and ethical questions.

Most of Mr. Shiavo's opponents appear to be more concerned with overturning those principles of tolerance and freedom, in favor of imposing a Fundamentalist Christian ethos on the entire population, regardless of whether that conflicts with others' principles and beliefs.

If people want a theocracy, I strongly suggest they go buy some other country and set one up, or move somewhere where they believe in that form of government -- Iran or Saudi Arabia come to mind as current exemplars of that style of "life."

The USA is founded on principles of religious freedom, and I really view these attempts to undermine our nation of laws to be quite un-American. To quote some of the folks who used to yell at me, "America -- love it or leave it!"

General, a few days ago I would have been in complete agreement with your statement: "Most of Mr. Shiavo's opponents appear to be more concerned with overturning those principles of tolerance and freedom, in favor of imposing a Fundamentalist Christian ethos on the entire population, regardless of whether that conflicts with others' principles and beliefs." I do agree with you that that's precisely what the Fundamentalist Christians would like to accomplish. However, I now would have to exempt our president and his political accomplices from even the definition of a fundamentalist or a christian. He and his circle stand on no principle whatsoever! I have just viewed an interview with a mother in Texas whose infant was taken off life support, over this mother's objections, pursuant to a statute signed into Texas law under then-governor Bush that allows the DOCTOR to make the decision based on the "futility" of the medical prognosis, AND the patient's ABILITY TO PAY!!! Talk about there being "nothing behind the eyes"!! As much as my worldview differs from that of the fundamentalist christian, at least I recognize that the fundamentalist christian stands on principle sometimes. Our president believes in NOTHING except POWER and WEALTH and is about as morally bankrupt as an EEL!!!

GoldBerry

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

03/23/2005 05:51:18 PM · #214

Originally posted by GeneralE:

yea that's what I was confused about. What reason does he give for knowing she wouldn't want to live? It's quite the dilly-of-a-pickle.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

03/23/2005 06:07:16 PM · #215

My opinion is that the president is not so much a moral believer in fundamentalist Christian values and beliefs but that in repayment for campaign contributions the president is used by the fundamentalists to obtain laws in their favor and political clout. The Bush administration also uses fundamentalist values as a way of controlling the masses.

The Terri Shiavo case is really a test case to see how much the Christian fundamentalists can get away with and to get the public used to big government interfering with the private lives of its citizens.

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

karmat

Apple iPhone 7

03/23/2005 06:19:16 PM · #216

Christian fundamentalists are to blame for this too? I never once gave a religious reason for my views, and while there may have been some somewhere in this thread, it was not the overwhelming argument. While my beliefs may be "rooted" in what you consider Chr. fund., my arguments are not entirelly. I have purposefully avoided those arguments. Regardless, the entire situation is one of the saddest I have seen in a while, as is its "backwash."

This will be my last post in this thread as it is simply to emotionally overbearing and overwhelming for me to take. A little too close to home, if you will.

Good luck and God bless each of you.

karmat

LoudDog

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

03/23/2005 06:30:06 PM · #217

Originally posted by GoldBerry:

Ahh, sorry that's what I wasn't getting. I'd guess he isn't divorcing her because he loves her and wants to do what he believes she would have wanted him to do. He isn't simply giving up on her. That just my guess though. Per another post he was offered millions to do that and he didn't, so I doubt money is the motivator.

rblanton

Canon EOS-10D

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

03/23/2005 06:32:50 PM · #218

Husband turns to wife and says, "Never put me on a machine, let me go. Don't ever do that to me." Wife says, "Ok, same for me. Never do it." Done deal, crystal clear, no one elses business.

MadMordegon

03/23/2005 06:45:39 PM · #219

Originally posted by RonB:

Given those conditions, I believe that the death penalty would be very rare.

Too bad somebody didnâ��t tell that to Governor Bush back in Texas, where he holds the record for most executions under a single governor, and it only took him 6 years to do it.

I thought he was a fan of Christian teachings? He has said his favorite philosopher was "Christ". I guess these types of things only relate when he thinks they should? In fact one of the laws he passed in Texas as governor has been used to remove Terri's feeding tube. Glad to see no hypocrisy here.

Must have something to do with politics...

MadMordegon

03/23/2005 06:52:56 PM · #220

Originally posted by canoe3k:

Husband turns to wife and says, "Never put me on a machine, let me go. Don't ever do that to me." Wife says, "Ok, same for me. Never do it." Done deal, crystal clear, no one elses business.

Amazing it took 9 pages for this extremely simple, and common, concept to come out clear.

RonB

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

03/23/2005 06:57:00 PM · #221

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
But what I feel is overlooked by many is that, in the USA, we make allowances for people holding to domewhat different belief systems and standards of ethical conduct, and we allow them the freedom to practice their beliefs as long as it meets some minimum legal threshold. This country was first colonized, and then then based its demand for independence, on the principle that the State and the public should have as little as possible to do with the private moral and ethical decisions we constantly make in family life.

Mr. Shiavo's position apparently satisfies that baseline, according to a whole bunch of people especially trained to evaluate such legal and ethical questions.

Most of Mr. Shiavo's opponents appear to be more concerned with overturning those principles of tolerance and freedom, in favor of imposing a Fundamentalist Christian ethos on the entire population, regardless of whether that conflicts with others' principles and beliefs.

If people want a theocracy, I strongly suggest they go buy some other country and set one up, or move somewhere where they believe in that form of government -- Iran or Saudi Arabia come to mind as current exemplars of that style of "life."

The USA is founded on principles of religious freedom, and I really view these attempts to undermine our nation of laws to be quite un-American. To quote some of the folks who used to yell at me, "America -- love it or leave it!"

General, a few days ago I would have been in complete agreement with your statement: "Most of Mr. Shiavo's opponents appear to be more concerned with overturning those principles of tolerance and freedom, in favor of imposing a Fundamentalist Christian ethos on the entire population, regardless of whether that conflicts with others' principles and beliefs." I do agree with you that that's precisely what the Fundamentalist Christians would like to accomplish. However, I now would have to exempt our president and his political accomplices from even the definition of a fundamentalist or a christian. He and his circle stand on no principle whatsoever! I have just viewed an interview with a mother in Texas whose infant was taken off life support, over this mother's objections, pursuant to a statute signed into Texas law under then-governor Bush that allows the DOCTOR to make the decision based on the "futility" of the medical prognosis, AND the patient's ABILITY TO PAY!!! Talk about there being "nothing behind the eyes"!! As much as my worldview differs from that of the fundamentalist christian, at least I recognize that the fundamentalist christian stands on principle sometimes. Our president believes in NOTHING except POWER and WEALTH and is about as morally bankrupt as an EEL!!!

Judith, You have been persuaded by rhetoric and not fact. For one thing, there is absolutely nothing in the Texas Advance Directives Act that comes even close to stipulating anything about one's ability to pay - it's not in there. For another thing, the Doctor cannot make the decision all by himself. The Directive requires that the Doctor and Guardian or Spouse, Child, Parent ( in that order ) make the decision TOGETHER - and if they are not in agreement, the decision goes to a review board. AND, in the case you refer to, in which a 5 month old infant was taken off life-support, the baby could not breath on his own, and had a rare and incurable congenital disorder ( fatal dwarfism ) that prevented his lungs from ever growing. Even WITH the respirator, it would not be long before his tiny lungs would not be able to process enough oxygen to sustain his body.

Mind you, I am certainly NOT advocating that he SHOULD have been removed from the respirator - in fact, I would have argued vehemently against it. Apart from the inability of his lungs to function sufficiently enough to sustain his body, there was no reason to believe that he would not have survived for a while longer, though who knows how long. I can only imagine the joy that his parents might have derived day by day in seeing him smile, ( or burp, or well, you know, do baby things ).

I just wanted to correct some things that were stated in error.

Jacko

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

03/23/2005 06:58:09 PM · #222

rofl.

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Originally posted by RonB:
Given those conditions, I believe that the death penalty would be very rare.

Too bad somebody didnâ��t tell that to Governor Bush back in Texas, where he holds the record for most executions under a single governor, and it only took him 6 years to do it.

I thought he was a fan of Christian teachings? He has said his favorite philosopher was "Christ". I guess these types of things only relate when he thinks they should? In fact one of the laws he passed in Texas as governor has been used to remove Terri's feeding tube. Glad to see no hypocrisy here.

Must have something to do with politics...