The Terri Shiavo Controversy - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS

03/20/2005 05:43:08 PM · #1

I'd love to hear what the photographic community thinks of this contreversy. Espescially from the international folks we have on the site. Just thought I'd bring it up...

Canon EOS-60D

03/20/2005 07:18:33 PM · #2

Maybe a lot of folks don't know who Terri Schiavo is, or just don't have opinions, or don't wish to post them in such a public forum. I have an opinion to share, however.

If her husband truly loved Terri, he would not have fathered children with another woman while still married to Terri. He would still be fighting for her survival, or at the very least, allowed her parents to assume responsibility for her. I understand there is some life insurance money at stake, as well as the remainder of her trust fund award from a malpractice suit. I think I read that the trust fund is to be donated to charity, should she pass, but I doubt the life insurance money would be. I don't know all the particulars well enough to expound on them. All I do know is that, at the VERY least, if I were in this situation and my husband was in a vegetative state, and I wanted to start my life over with someone else, I would have the decency to divorce him before having more kids with someone else. The only reason I can think of that he refuses to divorce her is because of life insurance or something like that.

Overall, I think that money must be the motivator for the 'husband's' actions because love certainly doesn't appear to be.

dahkota

Canon EOS-7D

03/20/2005 07:23:15 PM · #3

I don't know anything about the money but I do know that she has been in this state since 1990 - 15 years. That's a long time.

Jacko

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

03/20/2005 07:31:38 PM · #4

I really need to get a living will. I would not want to be in that state, nor would I want people around me to take care of me for such a long time. I would want life to go on for my loved ones.

Originally posted by dahkota:

I don't know anything about the money but I do know that she has been in this state since 1990 - 15 years. That's a long time.

Natator

Canon EOS-5D

03/20/2005 07:51:15 PM · #5

Originally posted by Jacko:

I really need to get a living will. I would not want to be in that state, nor would I want people around me to take care of me for such a long time. I would want life to go on for my loved ones.

I think they need to be realistic and let her go. She is not going to come back after that long, sad as it is. The husband has a right to a full life, and he can't truly move on until the past is allowed to be ... the past.

What I think is disgusting though is if they allow her to die, how it is made to happen, n amely just removing feeding tubes. Surely there has to be a more humane approach.

Cam

Sony DSC-F717

03/20/2005 07:57:17 PM · #6

Originally posted by Natator:

What I think is disgusting though is if they allow her to die, how it is made to happen, n amely just removing feeding tubes. Surely there has to be a more humane approach.

Yeah starving her too death just seems overly cruel, maybe they should give her the needle to end it quickly.

Maybe she does not really know what is going on, but MAYBE she does.

ButterflySis

Canon EOS-50D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

03/20/2005 07:59:36 PM · #7

Originally posted by Natator:

What I think is disgusting though is if they allow her to die, how it is made to happen, n amely just removing feeding tubes. Surely there has to be a more humane approach.

That's what I have a problem with. I think it's sad that she's in such a state. It's been a very long time and chances are good that she won't get any better. But, at the same time, removing her feeding tubes, imo, is basically murder. If they want to end her suffering (if she is indeed suffering.) than they should just give her an injection and be done with it. People on death row die more humanely than she will if they starve her to death. I wouldn't want to live like she is, but at the same time, while she's brain dead, she is breathing and living. It's not like a machine is giving her breath. They are talking about starving her. That's the only problem I have with the whole thing.

Also, I don't know if the husband is after the money. It's been 15 years and he should be allowed, imo, to continue his life and love someone else...but he should get a divorce then. I feel bad for her parents in a way because they feel that she's going to be murdered and they have no say what happens to their daughter. I can only imagine that it would be difficult to let someone else decide the fate of your daughter, even if what they decide is best.

It's just a sad story.

dahkota

Canon EOS-7D

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 16-85 f/3.5-5.6G ED VR

03/20/2005 08:03:32 PM · #8

I think, if she was brain dead, this wouldn't be an issue. The problem is that she is NOT brain dead.

This is definitely not a situation that I would ever want to be in. I could not knowingly starve someone to death. If there was another method, a kind Dr... (Kevorkian maybe?)

moodville

Nikon D100

03/20/2005 08:33:16 PM · #9

She apparently told her husband that she didnt want to be in a position that she is in now and if that is the case then her wishes should be respected. 15 years is a long time. It's possible she could recover but it's very unlikely. If she ever did recover life would be very different, but would she just continue with her path to kill herself she started before this happened? I think what started out as her parents refusal to let go has become a crusade that they neither want or know how to let go. It has been their life for the last 15 years. As for the divorce thing, maybe it's a religious thing or a promise he made to her that he doesnt want to break. It's a very romantic idea that life should end if something happens to your partner but also quite unrealistic. Maybe he's only in it for the money. No way to know for sure.

The thing I do have a problem with is the way they are trying to rush laws through specifically for this case. That would seem to be very manipulative of the system. Maybe I'm naive but just because certain people have an interest in the case doesnt mean it should have special treatment from anything else that goes through the system.

Personally, I wouldnt want to be in that position and would hope someone had the courage to end things than make me a subject of a personal crusade.

cbeller

Nikon D300

03/20/2005 09:20:05 PM · #10

For anyone interested, C-SPAN is currently showing the House debate on this case.

ergo

03/20/2005 09:23:34 PM · #11

There's a difference between "alive" and "living."

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

03/20/2005 09:25:04 PM · #12

I agree with Jacko, I need to get a living will and make it perfectly clear that I would not want to be kept alive for 15 years in such a devastating, artificial and inhumane way. Moreover, my living will would make it perfectly clear that whomever my spouse is at that time, she'd be completely free to continue with her life, as best she can, and how she sees fit -- after all, love is about wishing all the best and happiness for those we marry. I frankly would not want to impose nor burden my future spouse with any unduly prolonged and selfish suffering -- 15 years is enough. Finally, given that this is such a tragic and extremely personal situation, I'm dismayed that the federal government sees it fit to inject itself into it. The government's decision to step in, to my mind, makes this situation doubly tragic for ALL involved.

And now, SirBiggsALot, given that some of us have shared how we feel, it's only fair that you do the same.

Message edited by author 2005-03-20 21:51:05.

smellyfish1002

Canon EOS-20D

03/20/2005 09:35:18 PM · #13

I think technology is great, but if your own body is not able to sustain life, then it is time to go. There are people who carry on life through the advances in medicine, science, and technology, but they are functional. There is no way I would want to stay alive by the use of a feeding tube for 15 years, when I an unconscious, and essentially brain dead. When it is time for me to leave this Earth, I'd rather not stick around on a feeding tube...
JD

Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4.0 AT-X Pro DX

03/20/2005 09:53:56 PM · #14

Originally posted by bdobe:

I agree with Jacko, I need to get a living will; and make it perfectly clear that I would not want to be kept alive for 15 years in such a devastating, artificial and inhumane way. Moreover, my living will would make it perfectly clear that whomever my spouse is at that time, she'd be completely free to continue with her life, as best she can, and how she sees it fit -- after all, love is about wishing all the best and happiness for those we marry. I frankly would not want to impose nor burden my future spouse with unduly prolonged and selfish suffering -- 15 years is enough. Finally, given that this is such a tragic and extremely personal situation, I'm dismayed that the federal government sees it fit to inject itself now. The government's decision to step in, to my mind, makes this situation doubly tragic for ALL involved.

And now, SirBiggsALot, given that some of us have shared how we feel, it's only fair that you do the same.

Fair enough...I'll play ball.

I am decidedly against the feeding tube being removed, there is far too little real evidence all around for an educated decision on this womans life to be made.
1. The "statements" from Terri to her husband about not being kept alive are only witnessed by her husband and husbands brother and wife...all of that is heresay as ruled in court.
2. Her condition has not deteriorated much if at all in the last fifteen years.
3. She has never had any therapy physical, mental or otherwise in that time.
4. She has yet to receive more modern care such as MRI's, brain scans, and PET scans.
5. She clearly responds to family members and can visually track items like ballons and so on.

These are just a few of the issues that make me side with life in this and other cases like this. This handicap wouldn't be an issue if Terri was born this way...she wouldn't be starved to death. If you had a baby that was born with severe mental handicap would you let them sit without therapy, proper medical care and then fifteen years later just pull the feeding tube because it was time to go on.
Another term that really needs to be defined is "vegetative state". I would think this refers to someone who is kept alive by a ventalator and a heart pump whose brain function has ceased. If that is the case, Terri is clearly not in a vegetative state. She is severly handicapped, and that possibly is a result of the husband...if there was truly love from the husband, why not let the family take care of her. He has moved on, fiancee and a couple of kids does not sound like he can't really move on.
What if I had a bunch of dogs and one was sick and I just starved him...I'd be arrested for animal cruetly. But when a human becomes a "burden" because of handicap we shut the door? That kind of callous indifference is an indictment on our ethical stance and value on the human life.
Yeah, so there it is...I expect to be torn a new one.

Mark

milo655321

Nikon D70

03/20/2005 09:55:48 PM · #15

Well, from what I've read on the case, the person who was Terri Shiavo essentially died 15 years ago, but the body didn't. Not only can't Mrs. Shiavo make informed decisions regarding about her medical care, she can't even think about them. Here is a short description of Mrs. Shiavo's condition from the online blog Abstract Appeal:

You're left with a woman who suffered a heart attack 15 years ago, who essentially died but was resuscitated, though not entirely. Her brain had suffered enormous damage from the heart attack. As time passed, her brain further deteriorated -- to the point where much if not most of her cerebral cortex (the portion of the brain that controls conscious thought, among other things) was literally gone, replaced by spinal fluid. Doctors hired by Terri's husband say the deterioration of Terri's brain left her without thoughts or feelings, that the damage is irreversible, and that Terri's life-like appearance is merely the result of brain stem activity -- basically involuntary reflexes we all have. An independent doctor hired by the court reached the same conclusions. Doctors hired by Terri's parents did not dispute the physical damage done to Terri, but they claim there are new therapies that could improve her condition. In two separate trials, the trial court found such claims of potential improvement to be without merit. Terri's body continues to function without her cerebral cortex. She is sustained by a feeding tube surgically inserted into her stomach. She cannot eat through her mouth without a strong likelihood of choking to death.

The website also has a informative timeline of events, copies of legal briefs filed and court decisions rendered leading up to today's situation.

Originally posted by laurielblack:

Overall, I think that money must be the motivator for the 'husband's' actions because love certainly doesn't appear to be.

Your comments are unkind by half. As if you've had to face the criticism and vilification that man has over the last several years. Apparently, wealthy, California businessman Robert Herring, Sr., offered Mr. Shiavo $1 million to transfer guardianship of Mrs. Shiavo to her parents. That offer was made on March 10. It's now March 20 and the offer has not been accepted. Are willing to stand by your statement that Mr. Shiavo's motivations must be monetary?

Let her go.

Message edited by author 2005-03-20 21:56:41.

03/20/2005 10:02:43 PM · #16

SirBiggsALot,

I'd just make this one more point: attacking the husband is irrelevant. There are enough important issues in this tragic situation to discuss, rather than detracting from them by turning this into a "he said" vs. "she said" type argument. Let the man at peace, what he's chosen to do with his personal life is not germane -- and, frankly, I cannot fault him, nor will I judge him for seeking to rebuild a life.

Message edited by author 2005-03-20 22:03:29.

03/20/2005 10:10:30 PM · #17

Originally posted by bdobe:

My intent wasn't to attack the husband, but instead to question the integrity of the knowledge we have at hand. It would seem that there is a lot of information we don't know about the night she got sick, the exact words she used when referencing her spoken "living will", and the possible neglect of proper medical attention.
I do not fault him for seeking a new life, he just seemed quite calloused and very disingenuous when on the news speaking of this woman he loves/loved.

LoudDog

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4.0 AT-X Pro DX

03/20/2005 10:11:10 PM · #18

Originally posted by bdobe:

Agree 100%

Who would want to live like that with no hope of recovery? Who would chose to put their spouse in that position?

Shame on our government for getting involved in this issue. When she got married she chose to put this type of decision in her husbands hands. It's his decision and the rest of the world needs to butt out. Sorry, but once she was 18 her parents say doesn't matter.

milo655321

Nikon D70

03/20/2005 10:13:32 PM · #19

Originally posted by SirBiggsALot:

These are just a few of the issues that make me side with life in this and other cases like this. This handicap wouldn't be an issue if Terri was born this way...she wouldn't be starved to death. If you had a baby that was born with severe mental handicap would you let them sit without therapy, proper medical care and then fifteen years later just pull the feeding tube because it was time to go on.
Another term that really needs to be defined is "vegetative state". I would think this refers to someone who is kept alive by a ventalator and a heart pump whose brain function has ceased. If that is the case, Terri is clearly not in a vegetative state. She is severly handicapped, and that possibly is a result of the husband...if there was truly love from the husband, why not let the family take care of her. He has moved on, fiancee and a couple of kids does not sound like he can't really move on.
What if I had a bunch of dogs and one was sick and I just starved him...I'd be arrested for animal cruetly. But when a human becomes a "burden" because of handicap we shut the door? That kind of callous indifference is an indictment on our ethical stance and value on the human life.

Firstly, she'll die of dehydration long before starvation even has a chance.

Secondly, you're equivocating. How does a sick dog compare to a person who has spinal fluid taking the place a largely deteriorate brain? She's not just handicapped. Court appointed doctors have found her cognitive abilities to be essentially vegetative. I see that you may not agree with the term "vegetative," but that's because you've just defined it to suit your position. The courts apparently disagree with you.

You've stated that she is severely handicapped "possibly is a result of the husband." I've seen this claim several times, but I have yet to see any information to support it. Could you please provide some? If not, could you please stop using the claim to demonize the man?

karmat

Apple iPhone 7

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

03/20/2005 10:15:15 PM · #20

I'm going to post quickly, and I hope rationally, but this is a sensitive issue for me, and it is easy for me to get emotional when I think about it. I am almost in tears, now, typing.

First a bit of a technical definition -- while many consider feeding tubes life support (and in one sense of the word, they are), I don't. My definition of life support is when a person must have an external means (usually mechanical) to perform a function that is involuntary. Breathing, heart beat, digestion, waste elimination. Thus, kidney dialysis, to me, is life support, yet millions live an almost normal life with it. Should they be denied that if they have a living will? I also know a young child (he was 7 at the time, probably 10 or 12 by now) that had a feeding tube. He went to school every day and at lunch the teachers would feed him through it. No one considered that life support.

Okay, easy part out of the way.

I know a man that had a massive heart attack. He was "dead," clinically, for around 20 minutes. Because of that, his brain swelled causing extensive brain damage. When he finally came out of a full coma, he was still in what the medical community calls a semi-comatose/chronic vegatative state. His family, and those close to him (nurses, etc.) could tell when he was awake, asleep, "out of it," uncomfortable, nervous, etc. Obviously, he had a feeding tube. Unfortunately, this was against many of his doctor's and his brothers' and sister's wishes. His wife and children, though, felt basic nutrition was necessary, whether he would recover or not. His wife, who had no medical training whatsoever, took on the Herculean task of caring for him in his home, 24/7, because she knew that is where he would be most comfortable, and if he recovered, it would most likely be there.

To deny the feeding tube would be to deny him any chance. It would also cause a slow, painful death. For two and a half years, she stayed by his bedside, relieved regularly by her children who would sit with him for her to go to the store, get out for a bit, or whatever. All of their lives were "disrupted" by his current state of affairs. The night before he passed on, his wife could tell that he was "alert" and spent several hours talking to him. He would often, in good moments, blink his eyes for yes. That was his only means of communication, and it was rare. She fed him, cleaned him, and went to bed. Early the next morning, she awoke and noticed that it was unusually quiet. Her husband had passed peacefully into the next world -- with a full stomach.

He was an avid outdoorsman before the heart attack, and very, very active. Would he want to live like that? No, no one in their right mind would. Would he want to live? I think so. Would he want his wife and children to do what they were doing? I know so. You see, his wife is my mother, and I am his third child.

My opinion on Terry's case should be obvious. I don't htink her husband is doing it out of love and respect for her. Yes, it has been a long time. Yes, he is going on wiht life. I don't begrudge him that. BUT, I have been following this case for almost a year or longer. IN MY OPINION he is doing it for hte money. Religious reasons for not divorcing. Maybe. But the religions I am familiar with that disallow divorce also disallow sex outside of marriage, so I don't know that that argument holds up with me. Her family has told him he can have the malpractice money, to go on and live his life and leave Terry to their care. But, he wants her dead.

03/20/2005 10:19:46 PM · #21

Originally posted by SirBiggsALot:

It would seem that there is a lot of information we don't know about the night she got sick, the exact words she used when referencing her spoken "living will", and the possible neglect of proper medical attention.

This is not a decision for "us" to make collectively. This is an extremely personal matter, and not something that is open to a referendum. Doctors, lawyers, judges, a husband, family members have all weighted in; and, "we," the public that's just now stepping into the story, need to butt out of this family/personal tragedy. Their decision should not be dependent on what -- in my case -- some 30-something year old man, thousands of miles away, with no say in the matter, thinks they should do.

03/20/2005 10:27:54 PM · #22

It's really interesting how those that feel a certain way about this situation are going after the husband. I'm curious, because this line of attack against the husband's character is not something I've seen before in the mainstream media coverage that I've read on this case. Now, granted, I get most of my information from print media (on and off-line), and don't subscribe to cable and don't watch much TV. So, I'm curious, those that have posted against the husband, and that question his motives and character, where are you guys getting this information? Now, I don't think that going after the husband is relevant, but I'd be curious to know of the source of the attacks.

03/20/2005 10:32:09 PM · #23

Originally posted by bdobe:

Their decision should not be dependent on what -- in my case -- some 30-something year old man, thousands of miles away, with no say in the matter, thinks they should do.

Obviously your opinion doesn't matter to them...but mine doesn't either, I'm not posting for some political hope, I'm posting because I was curious what others thought. Just because our thoughts won't be used in a decision in the courts doesn't make them valid thoughts and ideas.

03/20/2005 10:38:05 PM · #24

Originally posted by bdobe:

There has been much talk of neglect on his side from the family as well as statements of suspisicion from the family of the happenings of the night her heart stopped. I can't speak to the specifics but the fact that the family who is closer to the situation speaks with great suspisicion about his motives and his attitude about Terri is enough for me to question him as well. And I should think any husband who openly denies treatment from doctors who say it will improve his wife's condition is the worst kind of man. It is because of that neglect that I question Terri's husbands motives and true attachment to her cause.

RonB