Congress & Schiavo

[SunDancer]

Originally Posted by Arles

I really don't know where to fall on this. I think the husband has been through a lot and am not quite as cynical on his motives as Farrah , but I can also see the side of the parents (who have doctors telling them she can recover) hoping to try every avenue. The hardest thing comes back to this 10-day "starvation" manner of death. Given she can notice people coming into the room and adjust to different situations tells me that she is going to seriously suffer if the feeding tube gets pulled.

This whole situation is really tragic and I hope the one message that comes from this is for everyone to get a living will.

I agree. While I agree with Blackie, I kinda have a hard time on the "10-day stravation" period thing. Personally, I would not want to live if I was in her state, but I would prolly want to die in a less painful, and a quicker time period. But this debate just opens a whole new debate.

[SunDancer]

dola..
The Husband and family will be on Larry King Live tonight.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Because she's mentally dead. He reached this conclusion in 1998. The court validated this position in 2001. They reached the conculsion that Terri ceases to exist as a congnitive human being who can make choices. So he - like most everyone else - has finally moved on. You can disagree with this prognosis all you want, but it's what has been determined in 11 seperate court actions. So in his mind, it is "death-do-us-part".

So why not just hand her off to her parents? He's moved on, she "ceases to exist as a cognitive human being". Why not be done with it all. Why does he care so much about Terri's final wishes now? He didn't after her accident.

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Or falling in love with another person a decade after this incident somehow clouds this issue? So you're saying that if I can keep this somehow tied up in court - even though I have no standing - he has to put his life on hold? Seems a bit unfair to me.

He could have walked away from this the moment he had a falling out with Terri's parents. He could have requested they take over as guardians, petitioned for a divorce and been done with it. He chose not to. Why? If he so badly wants to move on, that would have been the easiest way. I question if that's what he really wants.

Originally Posted by Blackadar

It is EXACTLY what's going on in this case. This is a private case and one side - the Conservative Christians - keep trying to get involved in it. This is a rule of law that has used the best of medical science to help determine the outcome. And because some religious conservatives don't like it, they keep attempting to interfere. I don't see the left in it at all.

It validates the trepidation among many of us non-Christians that Christian Conservatism will continue to be imposed (or attempted to be imposed) on those who don't believe the same things.

So non-Christian think it's ok to starve a woman to death because someone said she didn't want to live like this? I don't think so. That's why I disagree that it's a right vs. left issue.

Originally Posted by Blackadar

In one way, there really is very little diffference in this particular case. The result is going to be the same either way. But one is much more passive than the other. But you seem to keep repeating this mantra/statement to sensationalize her death as murder, which is really a shame.

Watching someone starve to death, becuase you want to "move on" is murder. You can put all the spin on it you want, but it's still murder.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

So non-Christian think it's ok to starve a woman to death because someone said she didn't want to live like this?

Terri herself said she didn't want to live like this. That's not just a "someone"...

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

Terri herself said she didn't want to live like this. That's not just a "someone"...

According to her husband, who is now in love with another woman. Her parents disagree that these were her wishes, and even her friends couldn't definitively say what her wishes were either way.

So it's his word against theirs.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

According to her husband, who is now in love with another woman. Her parents disagree that these were her wishes, and even her friends couldn't definitively say what her wishes were either way.

So it's his word against theirs.

So, say hypothetically that it could be proven that it was Terri's wish not to be kept on a feeding tube, you would be alright with that?

[ISiddiqui]

Why does he care so much about Terri's final wishes now? He didn't after her accident.

Um... probably because he wanted to see if she could come out of it. When it was apparent she wasn't, he did what Terri wanted.

Watching someone starve to death, becuase you want to "move on" is murder.

So if you were in a marriage and your spouse became a druggie and couldn't support himself, do you think getting a divorce, which would lead to him starving to death would be murder on your part? Yes or no?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

According to her husband, who is now in love with another woman. Her parents disagree that these were her wishes, and even her friends couldn't definitively say what her wishes were either way.

So it's his word against theirs.

Who's paying to keep her alive? The husband has been paying through the nose. It's easy for the parents to say she should live when they don't have to bear the burden.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

An exceptionally good point. Hypocrisy, thy name is the Christian Right.

I don't get this at all. Yes, the sanctity of marriage would be key to these people. (I tried to make this point with regard to abortion, but here we go again...) However, in the "hypocrisy" claim, one thing is getting missed: the people vehemently protesting see this as a murder. Not a mercy-killing, not euthanasia--but murder. To those who are protesting, it is no different than if he went into her room and smothered her with a pillow, or shot her, or stabbed her. So, arguing that they're hypocritical because they want to stop a murder just doesn't hold water. If you want to argue something, argue the way they see it, not that it is hypocritical. That just doesn't hold water.

I don't really have a strong dog in this fight, as I can see both sides:

1. Given this set of circumstances, I wouldn't ever consider doing what the husband is doing, (unless her family is just flat-out lying about her responsiveness). From everything I've read and heard about this situation, it appears to be quite different than the conversations that SWMBO and I have had about this sort of thing. We've both said to one another that we don't want to remain on life support if we're clearly not here mentally any longer. That doesn't appear to be the case at all here (again, given what I think is true.). Therefore, given this set of circumstances, I stick to my marriage vows.

2. I can understand how someone would want to just move on from this situation. It is beyond merely being an "inconvenience," as I believe someone said. I would imagine the husband believes (or has convinced himself) that he would be honoring her wishes by removing the feeding tube. I don't think he's an evil guy with murder at his heart just waiting to get rid of her.


All that being said, I do believe that removing the feeding tube is probably inhumane. I further agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment that more than anything else, this tragic situation highlights the extreme importance of having a detailed living will. It is a no-win no matter what happens in the next ten days.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

So if you were in a marriage and your spouse became a druggie and couldn't support himself

Hey, hey, hey. The drug use was never proven

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

So, say hypothetically that it could be proven that it was Terri's wish not to be kept on a feeding tube, you would be alright with that?

Yes. I would not want to force her to live on a feeding tube if she didn't want to. I don't think this has been proven, other than in a he said/she said manner. I think the state made a mistake giving the testimony of the husband more weight.

In situations where the wishes of the party are unclear, like this one, I would prefer the law default in favor of life, not death.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

So why not just hand her off to her parents? He's moved on, she "ceases to exist as a cognitive human being". Why not be done with it all. Why does he care so much about Terri's final wishes now? He didn't after her accident.

He could have walked away from this the moment he had a falling out with Terri's parents. He could have requested they take over as guardians, petitioned for a divorce and been done with it. He chose not to. Why? If he so badly wants to move on, that would have been the easiest way. I question if that's what he really wants.

So non-Christian think it's ok to starve a woman to death because someone said she didn't want to live like this? I don't think so. That's why I disagree that it's a right vs. left issue.

Watching someone starve to death, becuase you want to "move on" is murder. You can put all the spin on it you want, but it's still murder.

Thank you for proving how unable you are to articulate your position on this issue.

1. Actually, his REFUSAL to hand the responsibility tells me that he really did love his wife. It was his responsibility. It was his wife. And he wants to make sure her wishes are carried out. He wants her to go and lay her to rest.

Have you demonized this guy so much that you think he's just hovering over her bed and wants to kill her for spite? That's pitiful. If he didn't give a rats' ass, he could have taken an offer of $1 mil to walk away and get divorced. He DIDN'T take the easy way out and he should be respected for it.

It's interesting that my situation is much like his. My wife has told me she wouldn't want to live like that. But there's nothing signed and her ultra-religious family would never believe it. I'd hold out hope - but eventually, reality would probably set in. And I'd want to see it done under the terms that my wife had said to me. God forbid, but if I had that situation I would want to ensure that she was laid to rest. After all, I love her and owe her that respect. That's why I wouldn't walk away either, but I would eventually pull the plug.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Have you demonized this guy so much that you think he's just hovering over her bed and wants to kill her for spite? That's pitiful. If he didn't give a rats' ass, he could have taken an offer of $1 mil to walk away and get divorced. He DIDN'T take the easy way out and he should be respected for it.

That's a very good point. If he was a money-grubbing leech who didn't love his wife, why would he turn down the $1,000,000?

[SunDancer]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

That's a very good point. If he was a money-grubbing leech who didn't love his wife, why would he turn down the $1,000,000?

I've heard he was offered $10 million, any truth to this? Just curious, where would the money come from? I find it odd that a person could "buy" the care of the other.

[Ben E Lou]

I get the impression that the $1M (or $10M, depending on who you listen to) was a poorly-disguised attempt to expose him as a money-grubber. I have a strong suspicion that his turning it down doesn't prove anything. He could have been aghast at the offer, or he could have been simply wily enough to know that he was being set up.

If this was a real offer, then how do we know about it?

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by SunDancer

I've heard he was offered $10 million, any truth to this? Just curious, where would the money come from? I find it odd that a person could "buy" the care of the other.

Actually, I heard $5m from his lawyer, but the $1m is the highest public award so I was conservative. Either way, it points out that either he's:

1. Truly following the wishes of his wife out of love and respect for his (brain-dead) wife so he can lay her to rest.

2. A pathetic, deranged, lunatic, demonic (did I leave anything out?) killer who has waited 15 years and spend a ton of money in court just so he can pull he plug on his wife and dance on her grave.

Which one seems more likely?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Actually, I heard $5m from his lawyer, but the $1m is the highest public award so I was conservative. Either way, it points out that either he's:

1. Truly following the wishes of his wife out of love and respect for his (brain-dead) wife so he can lay her to rest.

2. A pathetic, deranged, lunatic, demonic (did I leave anything out?) killer who has waited 15 years and spend a ton of money in court just so he can pull he plug on his wife and dance on her grave.

Which one seems more likely?

3. Smart enough to know that the offer was merely meant to "expose" him.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

I get the impression that the $1M (or $10M, depending on who you listen to) was a poorly-disguised attempt to expose him as a money-grubber. I have a strong suspicion that his turning it down doesn't prove anything. He could have been aghast at the offer, or he could have been simply wily enough to know that he was being set up.

If this was a real offer, then how do we know about it?

Nice phrasing there...kind of like the "when did you stop beating your wife" question.

"The offer wasn't real or it was a setup, you choose."

Edit: With all of the interest in this case, is it reasonable to believe that at least one substantial, legitimate financial offer has been made for him to walk away?

I'd bet my next paycheck on it as it's by far the most probable scenario.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Who's paying to keep her alive? The husband has been paying through the nose. It's easy for the parents to say she should live when they don't have to bear the burden.

Well, the proceeds from a medical malpractice lawsuit and associated punitive damages are keeping her medical bills paid. There's just too much irony here I don't know what to do with it--if the Republicans had managed to put a cap on medical malpractice then as they so badly want to do now, Terri Schiavo would already be dead!

Anyway, that money is almost all gone. Farrah suggests that the parents would pay for Terri's care if the husband ceded guardianship, though she still hasn't answered me as to whether the parents really do have the assets to assume that burden for 40+ years. So I would have to assume that the good taxpayers of America would have had to foot the bill if the feeding tube would have stayed in.

If that were the case, I really would consider making a tax-deductible donation to the hemlock society for the couple of cents or whatever my share of the bill would have been...

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Nice phrasing there...kind of like the "when did you stop beating your wife" question.

"The offer wasn't real or it was a setup, you choose."

Edit: With all of the interest in this case, is it reasonable to believe that at least one substantial, legitimate financial offer has been made for him to walk away?

I'd bet my next paycheck on it as it's by far the most probable scenario.

Sorry, I didn't make my point clearly enough, apparently.

Suppose that some well-meaning person or group of persons DID actually get together $1M and offered it to him. How could HE know beyond the shadow of a doubt that it was a legit offer? He'd be taking a *huge* risk if he indicated in any way that he'd accept money. I'm saying that it is likely that he's doing what he believes to be her wishes. However, even if his motives in this are way less than pure, it would *still* be incredibly stupid for him to make any indication that he was even considering accepting a payoff.

[Ben E Lou]

Oh yeah...

how many people think that feeding tube is going back in and back out at least once or twice more before all of this is resolved?

[stevew]

Why isnt he okay with letting the parents take care of her? They seem to be willing and/or able. The fact that he is in a new relationship with children would indicate a break of marital vows. If she is essentially dead to him, why cant he just divorce her and let her parents deal with it. Its pretty fucked up they are just gonna let her starve to death over 10 days.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Thank you for proving how unable you are to articulate your position on this issue.

I think I've articulated my position very well. Simply because you disagree doesn't mean I haven't. I've even ignored your comments about the Christian Conservatives thinking we were having a good discussion, and that would take this in a bad direction. I hope our discussion can continue without you trying to put me down again.

Originally Posted by Blackadar

1. Actually, his REFUSAL to hand the responsibility tells me that he really did love his wife. It was his responsibility. It was his wife. And he wants to make sure her wishes are carried out. He wants her to go and lay her to rest.

If it was his responsibility to make sure her wishes were carried out, and if he truly loved his wife and wanted to honor those wishes, why didn't he do so right away? Maybe he wanted to see if she got better - ok maybe. That sounds reasonable. Did he get her therapy during that time? Take her to the Mayo Clinic to see the best in the medical field? In those three years 1990-1993, what did he do to help her get better? From what I've read, he didn't exercise all the options available. Why? There could be a very logical explanation, but in its absence it looks suspicious.

He approached the family about removing the feeding tube. He still waited to carry out her wishes even after her family disagreed. He waited, and that raises questions. Compound that with his actions outside this case, and in the rest of his life I'm suspicious.

As an aside - I doubt Terri's wishes were to starve to death so he's really not carrying out her wishes. He's just helping her die.

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Have you demonized this guy so much that you think he's just hovering over her bed and wants to kill her for spite? That's pitiful. If he didn't give a rats' ass, he could have taken an offer of $1 mil to walk away and get divorced. He DIDN'T take the easy way out and he should be respected for it.

I haven't demonized anybody. I didn't need to. His actions speak for themselves. You made the point that there was nothing wrong with wanting to move on. I agreed - but raised the point there were other options, other than the starvation of this woman, to make that happen. He chose not to. I wonder why, because I question if he could have the best interest of his wife at heart when he's invovled with another woman. That's not accusing him of wanting to kill her for spite, that's questioning his judgement.

He's not a stupid man. If he took that $1mil to walk away now, if it was even a legit offer, after all the publicity this case has gotten, he'd never be able to live a normal life again. He has no choice now but to see this to the end.

Originally Posted by Blackadar

It's interesting that my situation is much like his. My wife has told me she wouldn't want to live like that. But there's nothing signed and her ultra-religious family would never believe it. I'd hold out hope - but eventually, reality would probably set in. And I'd want to see it done under the terms that my wife had said to me. God forbid, but if I had that situation I would want to ensure that she was laid to rest. After all, I love her and owe her that respect. That's why I wouldn't walk away either, but I would eventually pull the plug.

Then wouldn't you want to avoid a situation like this by having her wishes in writing, prepared by a professional? Especially if there's a chance her family wouldn't believe it.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by stevew

Why isnt he okay with letting the parents take care of her? They seem to be willing and/or able. The fact that he is in a new relationship with children would indicate a break of marital vows. If she is essentially dead to him, why cant he just divorce her and let her parents deal with it. Its pretty fucked up they are just gonna let her starve to death over 10 days.

Well, if he thinks that he's doing what she wanted, then he wouldn't turn her over to someone who has clearly stated a desire *not* to do what (in his mind) she wanted.

Like I said, this is just an awful set of circumstances.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Sorry, I didn't make my point clearly enough, apparently.

Suppose that some well-meaning person or group of persons DID actually get together $1M and offered it to him. How could HE know beyond the shadow of a doubt that it was a legit offer? He'd be taking a *huge* risk if he indicated in any way that he'd accept money. I'm saying that it is likely that he's doing what he believes to be her wishes. However, even if his motives in this are way less than pure, it would *still* be incredibly stupid for him to make any indication that he was even considering accepting a payoff.

Come on, Skydog. Do you think that they couldn't investigate/negotiate an ironclad offer using 3rd party lawyers without revealing he'd take money? That would be child's play! That kind of stuff is done every day.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Come on, Skydog. Do you think that they couldn't investigate/negotiate an ironclad offer using 3rd party lawyers without revealing he'd take money? That would be child's play! That kind of stuff is done every day.

If it were me, I'd be afraid that, with all the publicity and reporters involved, I'd be found out.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Well, if he thinks that he's doing what she wanted, then he wouldn't turn her over to someone who has clearly stated a desire *not* to do what (in his mind) she wanted.

Like I said, this is just an awful set of circumstances.

Yeah, i agree that either side could have points, and it is a bad set of circumstances. I would just think that erring on the side of caution(i.e. the side of life) would be better. Especially when she doesnt have a living will.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

Anyway, that money is almost all gone. Farrah suggests that the parents would pay for Terri's care if the husband ceded guardianship, though she still hasn't answered me as to whether the parents really do have the assets to assume that burden for 40+ years. So I would have to assume that the good taxpayers of America would have had to foot the bill if the feeding tube would have stayed in.

I don't know if her parents have the assets to take care of her for the next 40 years. Do you have the assets today to take care of yourself and your family for the next 40 years? I know I certainly don't. Doesn't mean the taxpayers will be paying for my family either - I'll find a way to provide for them. Just like I'm sure her family would.

[Easy Mac]

Just to lighten the mood, a protestor:


something tells me she wants a little life in the mouth... but it would probably be bettered served to put the life somewhere useful...

[Subby]

Originally Posted by duckman

Exactly.

To me, this is no different than putting my 36 year old uncle with Down's Syndrome in a room to starve to death because of "limited brain function".

Many of you people should be ashame of yourselves.

Hey - just butting in here to make a case for folks with Down syndrome...

Your comment is troubling because most 36-year olds with Down syndrome are smart enough to open the door and go make themselves a sandwich. Adults with Down syndrome hold jobs, get married, even buy houses (in several cases).

Without commenting on the specifics of this case, just felt a public service message about the potential intelligence and independence of folks with Ds is fairly remarkable but often ignored in favor of stereotypes.

Anyway...

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

I don't get this at all. Yes, the sanctity of marriage would be key to these people. (I tried to make this point with regard to abortion, but here we go again...) However, in the "hypocrisy" claim, one thing is getting missed: the people vehemently protesting see this as a murder. Not a mercy-killing, not euthanasia--but murder. To those who are protesting, it is no different than if he went into her room and smothered her with a pillow, or shot her, or stabbed her. So, arguing that they're hypocritical because they want to stop a murder just doesn't hold water. If you want to argue something, argue the way they see it, not that it is hypocritical. That just doesn't hold water.

I think the problem here is one half sees taking the tube out and letting her die as a murder, while the other half sees keeping her alive with a feeding tube as prolonged torture without hope of an end, both for her and the husband.

I'm sorry, but Farrah has shown in this thread that she cannot think rationally on this issue. Her arguments are all based on inflaming emotions and making this guy out to be a bastard and pointlessly holding out hope for magical fairies to come in and give this woman her brain function back. Just as Dr. Kevorkian was probably a poor choice as an advocate for assisted suicide, she is a poor advocate for keeping this woman alive. Maybe the right person could help persuade me that this woman should not be allowed to die, but Farrah's arguments only serve to push me farther from understanding her side of the issue, especially when she throws in generalizations like "I don't trust men" into her arguments.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

If it was his responsibility to make sure her wishes were carried out, and if he truly loved his wife and wanted to honor those wishes, why didn't he do so right away? Maybe he wanted to see if she got better - ok maybe. That sounds reasonable. Did he get her therapy during that time? Take her to the Mayo Clinic to see the best in the medical field? In those three years 1990-1993, what did he do to help her get better? From what I've read, he didn't exercise all the options available. Why? There could be a very logical explanation, but in its absence it looks suspicious.

Suspicious? No, the very logical explanation is that he followed his doctor's advice! In addition, it's not like moving her is easy in any way. In fact, moving her may have presented a greater danger. Also, how did 1998 become 1993 all of a sudden. Remember, it's eight years before he petitioned the court.

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

He approached the family about removing the feeding tube. He still waited to carry out her wishes even after her family disagreed. He waited, and that raises questions. Compound that with his actions outside this case, and in the rest of his life I'm suspicious.

Are you now stating fact or fiction? Where did you get that he waited after her family disagreed? We do know there was a dispute in 1993. It was over the malpractice money and their subsequent petition to be the guardians of Terri. It was not over the removal of the feeding tube.

He waited until 1998. Perhaps that's when he finally gave up hope. Perhaps there was some new diagnotic test that said she wasn't going to get better. Eithe way, that's when he petitioned the court. Heck, he may have not honored her wishes by filing sooner. But we'd have the same exact scenario - only he'd be even more demonized because it would look like he was rushing to kill her.

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

As an aside - I doubt Terri's wishes were to starve to death so he's really not carrying out her wishes. He's just helping her die.

Which, according to him, IS carrying out her wishes! Something that no one else has been able to find any real evidence to the contrary.

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

I haven't demonized anybody. I didn't need to. His actions speak for themselves. You made the point that there was nothing wrong with wanting to move on. I agreed - but raised the point there were other options, other than the starvation of this woman, to make that happen. He chose not to. I wonder why, because I question if he could have the best interest of his wife at heart when he's invovled with another woman. That's not accusing him of wanting to kill her for spite, that's questioning his judgement.

He's not a stupid man. If he took that $1mil to walk away now, if it was even a legit offer, after all the publicity this case has gotten, he'd never be able to live a normal life again. He has no choice now but to see this to the end.

You have demonized him. You doubt his every move. You absolutely decline to take the most plausable explanations and in turn seem to want to cast aspersions at everything he has done.

To you, this guy must be the biggest idiot in the planet. He wants to off his brain dead wife for money. But he waits for 8 years to file the papers, turns down huge monetary offers to step aside, spends all of his money on attorneys, spends 7 more years in court and incurrs the wrath of a vocal minority of the nation just so he gets to do it. I mean, this guy must be an absolute moron!

That's the only way the facts fit your scenario.

As an aside, do you think he's going to be able to lead a normal life now? In fact, taking the money (privately, of course) and then turning her over would make this all go away and enable him to lead a normal life. And yes, there are ways to set up such an arrangement so no one finds out.

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

Then wouldn't you want to avoid a situation like this by having her wishes in writing, prepared by a professional? Especially if there's a chance her family wouldn't believe it.

No. It's a personal matter and she knows my wishes and I hers. That's good enough for us...and we'd rather not even think of the possibility. Making out a will is hard enough.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

If it was his responsibility to make sure her wishes were carried out, and if he truly loved his wife and wanted to honor those wishes, why didn't he do so right away? Maybe he wanted to see if she got better - ok maybe. That sounds reasonable. Did he get her therapy during that time? Take her to the Mayo Clinic to see the best in the medical field? In those three years 1990-1993, what did he do to help her get better? From what I've read, he didn't exercise all the options available. Why? There could be a very logical explanation, but in its absence it looks suspicious.

Ah, therein lies the problem with medical treatment in America. You're asking why he didn't exhaust every possible medical solution available. Well, he probably did, but with the caveat that he exhausted every possible solution available that could be afforded. And what solutions were available? You speak as if there's some "miracle doctor" that he didn't consult. What are you suggesting?

For someone who "always takes the optimistic view" you're certainly very pessimistic about Michael Schiavo.

He approached the family about removing the feeding tube. He still waited to carry out her wishes even after her family disagreed. He waited, and that raises questions. Compound that with his actions outside this case, and in the rest of his life I'm suspicious.

As I said before, it would not surprise me if, during this 5-year period, he attempted to convince her family of her wishes. Are you saying that attempting to convince someone, in their own time, as opposed to immediately circumventing them via the courts is not compassionate?

I see a man struggling with the conflicting desires of his incapacitated wife verses those of her family. You apparently see a devious, but rather inept murderer and philanderer intent on extracting maximum suffering from everyone involved. So much for the "optimistic side", eh?

As an aside - I doubt Terri's wishes were to starve to death so he's really not carrying out her wishes. He's just helping her die.

Give me a break. Assuming Terri's wishes were not to live, I think we can reasonably assume that, of course, she'd want a quick and painless method of death. Unfortunately, self-righteous people in this country don't want that to be an option for people.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by Kodos

I think the problem here is one half sees taking the tube out and letting her die as a murder, while the other half sees keeping her alive with a feeding tube as prolonged torture without hope of an end, both for her and the husband.

I'm sorry, but Farrah has shown in this thread that she cannot think rationally on this issue. Her arguments are all based on inflaming emotions and making this guy out to be a bastard and pointlessly holding out hope for magical fairies to come in and give this woman her brain function back. Just as Dr. Kevorkian was probably a poor choice as an advocate for assisted suicide, she is a poor advocate for keeping this woman alive. Maybe the right person could help persuade me that this woman should not be allowed to die, but Farrah's arguments only serve to push me farther from understanding her side of the issue, especially when she throws in generalizations like "I don't trust men" into her arguments.

I think you make an excellent point in your first paragraph. But of course I'm going to have to disagree with your second pragraph.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

I think you make an excellent point in your first paragraph. But of course I'm going to have to disagree with your second pragraph.

Just like a woman!

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Just like a woman!

Just blame it on the hormones. That's what I do.

[Noop]

I don't think the guy is wrong for going and having sex with another woman and having kids. His wife will never recover and is a zombie... I don't know what all this talk about a living will and her last wishes. But if she really loved him she would have wanted him to move on and live his life.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

I don't know if her parents have the assets to take care of her for the next 40 years. Do you have the assets today to take care of yourself and your family for the next 40 years? I know I certainly don't. Doesn't mean the taxpayers will be paying for my family either - I'll find a way to provide for them. Just like I'm sure her family would.

That seems like a rather dismissive response to a real practical issue. Don't you realize that you are one catastrophic illness or accident away from being completely wiped out financially?

If the parents say they will be able to take care of her financially, they had better be able to back it up--especially when the costs are no longer hypothetical and are a reality they would have to deal with in the here and now...

[Suicane75]

Is this the chick who was bitten by Jake Roberts snake Damien? I thought it had been devenomized?

[Glengoyne]

I've said it before, but that won't stop me from saying it again. I don't think the Republicans have been this wrong about an issue since Elian Gonzalez.

I think the overwhelming majority of us would be doing exactly what the Husband is doing if our spouses had made it clear to us that they didn't want to be kept alive in such a condition of diminished capacity. I think it would be unconscionable not to do what he is, under those conditions.

In these cases it is the spouse's choice, not the parents. It is too bad they don't agree, but they really don't have a say. She left them, and became his wife.

As for your opinion on this Farrah. Yes you have made it clear. You really just haven't actually articulated what it is that would make him want to let his wife die, other than his assertion that it is what she would want.

I agree with Blackie, that he is persevering through much adversity, to carry out his wife's exact wishes.

What other motives explain his actions?

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/18/sc...ged/index.html

Is the official policy of the Republican Party now "the federal government has the power to do whatever it wants whenever it wants"

Or is that just the practice and the official policy still pretends to give a flying flip about states rights?

::claps::

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Suicane75

Is this the chick who was bitten by Jake Roberts snake Damien? I thought it had been devenomized?

Apparently not.

[duckman]

Originally Posted by Subby

Hey - just butting in here to make a case for folks with Down syndrome...

Your comment is troubling because most 36-year olds with Down syndrome are smart enough to open the door and go make themselves a sandwich. Adults with Down syndrome hold jobs, get married, even buy houses (in several cases).

Without commenting on the specifics of this case, just felt a public service message about the potential intelligence and independence of folks with Ds is fairly remarkable but often ignored in favor of stereotypes.

Anyway...

I was just throwing it out there to get people thinking. I believe that this could cause a slippery slope. There will be some people who will use this case as a means to murder someone with limited brain function. I wouldn't be suprised to see someone go to court over someone with MS ,Down's Syndrome, or any other disease.

Down's syndrome, like other genetic disorders, have a wide range of severity. My uncle has the mind of a nine year old. When my grandmother passes away, he will likely be cared for by my aunt.

Could he take care of himself? I think he could, but doctors at the time didn't have the information like now about the disorder.

The family has tried to convince my grandmother to place him in one of those workshops to help develop his skills, but she won't have any of it.

[chinaski]

Originally Posted by duckman

I was just throwing it out there to get people thinking. I believe that this could cause a slippery slope. There will be some people who will use this case as a means to murder someone with limited brain function. I wouldn't be suprised to see someone go to court over someone with MS ,Down's Syndrome, or any other disease.

Down's syndrome, like other genetic disorders, have a wide range of severity. My uncle has the mind of a nine year old. When my grandmother passes away, he will likely be cared for by my aunt.

Could he take care of himself? I think he could, but doctors at the time didn't have the information like now about the disorder.

The family has tried to convince my grandmother to place him in one of those workshops to help develop his skills, but she won't have any of it.

This is the same stuff Schaivos brother is constantly talking about, and of course that her husband is responsible for her condition.

This MS angle is a very extreme example of what "horrible" consequences will come if Schaivo dies. Do you think Doctors all across the world are going to unite and decide to lower their standards? Because, they are the ones who have the final say on whether or not they die. So regardless of what people try to do with much lesser versions of Terry Schaivo, the Doctors are still going to maintain the same standard.

[Tekneek]

If the husband were responsible, through some criminal means, why has nothing turned up after all these years? Has he ever been arrested or detained? One would think, with such a high profile case as this, that they would have taken a hard look at everything and given it a shot if they had any sort of evidence to run with at all. That's why I have a hard time buying the idea that the husband did this to her with criminal intent. Either he's of a brilliant criminal mind, or this claim would seem to have no substance.

The fact is...she did not bother to create a 'living will' or 'order of power of attorney' to designate someone other than her husband as the decision-maker over matters like this. No one has, apparently, been able to make a sound and convincing argument to remove that power from him. What's the lesson to be learned? If you are an adult, you had better decide what you want done and get it in legal writing before it is too late...or else trust that your next-of-kin (spouse, if you have one) is going to make the right decision. For me, that's the end of this story.

[BigJohn&TheLions]

I was discussing this with my mother and something came up that I haven't heard even mentioned. If I was her father and truly was thinking about what was best for my daughter I would see two options:

Option one would be purchasing a gun and shooting him in order to remove him as the next of kin. It would then become her mother, as I would be locked up. I couldn't do this as he may be doing what he truly believes is right, and it would leave his children without a father.

Option two would be what my choice would likely be. My daughter would only suffer while starving to death. I think I would kill her by poisoning her. It would be very difficult, but I would probably do it just to end her suffering. She would die anyway. The difference would be that this would be quick and painless.

The fucked up thing is that in this nation I would be charged with murder. If you shoot a man who just jumped off a building and he dies before hitting the street it is considered murder. Same thing here. In court it is more humane to let someone starve to death over two weeks than to kill them quickly, even to end their suffering.

[Easy Mac]

I guess this must be a job for federal courts: (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=7951146)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In an effort to intervene to keep alive a severely brain-damaged Florida woman, federal lawmakers agreed on Saturday on a compromise bill aimed at restoring her feeding tube and pushing the right-to-die case back into court.

The deal was reached just 24 hours after doctors acting on a Florida court order removed the feeding tube that has kept Terri Schiavo alive for the past 15 years.

"We are confident that this compromise addresses everyone's concerns," House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a Texas Republican, told a news conference. "We are confident it will ... restore nutrition and hydration" to Schiavo.

The House will meet on Sunday afternoon in a special session to consider limited legislation passed by the Senate that would allow a federal judge to rule on whether withholding food and water from Schiavo violates her constitutional rights.

Earlier on Saturday, Schiavo's husband, who has fought for her right to die and has been backed by courts in a seven-year legal battle, assailed Republican congressmen for their last-minute attempts to keep her alive.

"SHAME" ON CONGRESS

"They should be ashamed of themselves," Michael Schiavo said in an interview with the CBS "Early Show." "Leave my wife alone. Leave me alone."

Underscoring the bitter family dispute that widened into a highly public right-to-die case, Schiavo's mother urged politicians in Florida and Washington to work to keep her daughter alive.

"My daughter is in the building behind me starving to death. We laugh together, we cry together, we smile together, we talk together. She is my life," Mary Schindler said.

Schiavo, now 41, has been fed through a stomach tube since a heart attack starved her brain of oxygen in 1990, leaving her in what the courts declared was a permanent vegetative state.

The dispute between Terri Schiavo's husband and her parents, who have argued she responds to them and could improve with treatment, has galvanized activists on all sides of the right-to-die issue. Courts have accepted Michael Schiavo's stance that she would wish to die.

Schiavo, whose feeding has twice been halted and resumed in the past amid legal wrangles, was expected to survive for up to two weeks without the feeding tube. The White House said Saturday that President Bush supported the latest efforts by lawmakers.

COURTS PREVAIL

"We're supportive of efforts by congressional leaders. We remain in close contact with Congress, and the President is being kept apprised," said White House spokeswoman Jeanie Mamo.

The congressional move came after an emotional appeal from Schiavo's mother.

In a brief statement around noon before visiting her daughter at the hospice where she has lived in recent years, Mary Schindler appealed directly to Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and President Bush to help keep her daughter alive.

The congressional efforts came after bills passed earlier this week by the House and Senate were vastly different in scope and the two sides were unable to reach a compromise.

Schiavo's feeding tube was removed on Friday afternoon after a congressional effort that stalled in court.

Republican congressional leaders sought to block the court order to have the tube removed and keep the tube in place by subpoenaing Terri Schiavo to appear before hearings and committees this month. The move would have granted her protection as a witness in a congressional inquiry.

But the Florida state judge in the case, Circuit Judge George Greer, rebuffed the effort and said his order for the tube to be removed should go ahead.

Congressional lawyers appealed Greer's decision before the Florida Supreme Court, which rejected it. Later on Friday, the House Committee on Government Reform made an emergency appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court to have Schiavo's feeding tube reinserted, but that application was denied. (Additional reporting by Robert Green in Pinellas Park)

[Easy Mac]

lets put this in the federal courts, but lets keep gay marriage out. Nice to see they now care about constitutional rights.

[cartman]

Once again, I'm wondering how legal this new Congressional attempt is. Can one of the lawyers on the board explain how this would jive with the concept of "ex post facto"? I thought if something has already happened, then a law can't be passed making the act that happened in the past illegal, or against the new law.

[SunDevil]

I would just like to add that she has been in this condition since 1990. Let me repeat that, 1990. That will be 15 years that she has been in this limited state of living. I think that after that amount of time, someone will show signs of recovery. According to many people, she has not. Her parents for years have gotten doctors to test/check her condition and most have said she is not responding to any kind of communication. Countless doctors have said that she is not aware and will not get any better.

Now regardless of that information, I can not even imagine being trapped inside a non-reponsive body for 15 years. I also do not think that removing the feeding tube and having someone starve to death is a good way either.

There are no winners in this debate. You can not fault the parents for holding out hope, and you can not fault her husband who after 15 years is in love with another woman. This is life, and its private, and I think all government intervention should be eliminated.