Terri Schiavo

The big question, in my mind, is whether or not she actually is suffering? I'm sure she's aware, but does she feel the pain?

If it we're me in her situation I'd want people to remove the tubes very soon. I simply don't feel that a partial recovery, which would be rare to none, would be worth the pain and suffering of my family for years upon years.

I agree with the majority of the posters that a living will is the only way to go. There's a time when you just need to let people go. I distinctly remember my whole family standing around my grandfathers hospital bed at Walter Reed, and just telling him it was okay to go. The next morning he passed away, and though we were sad -- we were also relieved that his suffering was over.

My problem with her husband making this decision is three-fold.

1) He didn't remember her "wish to die" until after he became engaged to another woman (with whom he is living and has two children).

2) He refuses any tests (even though he wouldn't have to pay for them) that would confirm or refute her Persistant Vegetative State.

3) During the malpractice suits he filed (and won) he claimed all the monies would go toward her care, and his doctors estimated her life span to be for many years from now. He now wants to "carry out her wishes" with money still in the bank.

I'm pro-euthanasia, I believe in the right-to-die with dignity, and wish Congress and the courts could have stayed out of a messy situation. I just don't think he has his wife's best interests at heart.

it is definitely a mess that i am glad not to be a part of. not sure how i would handle it if i was on either side of the coin...

i despise Jeb Bush for sticking his nose in it (he is now trying to push to have state custody placed upon Terri Schiavo, so that the tube can be re-inserted), and i despise Congress getting in the middle of it as well. the Florida courts have made their case over and over again...

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html
i found this site to be pretty unbiased when it comes to this case, as the author of the blog states he is more interested in the laws pertaining to the case than the case itself.

in listening to Elliot in the Morning today...i found it very ironic that her heart attack was partially based on the fact that she was bulimic, yet they are fighting over whether to continue to feed her or not...

i also don't buy that the husband still has any money...whether or not he kept it for himself (supposedly the malpractice suit split the monies, 750k went to Terri and 300k went to Michael), he still has extensive legal fees and such. it is a bit odd that he first wanted the tube removed when he met his current girlfriend.

Life is precious and we as humans don't haev the right to extinguish it. Ms. Schiavo had no living will and therefore it is basically Mr. Schiavo's word versus the parents. In that case since we cannot know beyond all doubt her intentions we cannot morally allow this woman to starve to death. It is sad that it has come to this.
Sometimes it amazes me how fearful some extremely religious people are so afraid of a loved one being let go and passing on.
I am probably not the only one who finds this statement overtly offensive. First off are we even sure the Schindler's are strongly religious? I am not sure whether they are or aren't but either way it is irrelevant. The foundation for one's opinion on this type of issue doesn't have any relevance upon the validity of said opinion. They are her parents and they honestly don't feel that they should let her be killed by starvation. Why should they? The woman isn't suffering in her current life style so depriving her of food is killing her.

Your statement insinuates something negative about people who have strong religious values. Whish is woefully misguided. You are entitled to believe what you want but don't belittle someone else's beliefs. Just because these so called "extremely religous people" value life unconditionally doesn't mean they are "fearful". They respect life and believe you, I and they shouldn't have a hand in granting it or not.

By the way...I would never in a billion years allow my daughter to be starved to death without her expressed consent to be allowed to die in these type of situations. She is the most important part of my life and as long as she is not suffering I would do ANYTHING to keep her alive. You could ask anybody who knows me, I am not an "extremely religious" person either.

I am in no way belittling anyone's religious beliefs, so don't start putting words in my mouth or misconstrueing(sp?) my statement. Through my life expiriences I have met many religious people who speak of how glorious it is to be with God and that is the greatest gift that can be bestowed upon someone when their time has come, but yet seem to become somewhat hypocritical when a situation arises when someone they know is being taken away from them. I recently had to go through something of a similar situation with my Grandmother before christmas, but because we knew she wanted to be at peace with my grandfather away from the pain, we let her go when it came time to make that choice.

I was just stating how fearful some people of faith suddenly become when someone they love might soon be gone and I can understand them not wanting her to go or go suffering, but if they are as devote in their faith as they claim, why are they so reluctant to let her be at peace? I'm in no way trying to start a religious argument or trying to "belittle" anyone's beliefs so don't make it out to be that I was. I am sorry if I offended anyone with my previous statement but that was not my intent, it was just a statement of life events that I have personally witnessed.

Didn't mean to get argumentative.

I think the error in your statement comes from using the term "religious people" or "people of faith". I don't think not letting go is contained to that group of people. I would say that for those people they believe the only person who can decide the question of life or death would that person explicitly. The Schaivo case no longer has anything do with Terri's wishes. We don't even know her wishes honestly. Both the parents and the husband hate each other and there are legitimate reasons to doubt the sincerity of Mr. Schaivo at the very least. Not to mention that now the political sides have turned this into a take-no-prisoners battleground that is totally disprespectful of Ms. Schaivo.

Here's a good link...

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usatoday/20050324/ts_usatoday/schiavonotlikelytoexperienceapainfuldeathneurologi stssay

Living wills are not as strong as one thinks. The woman is being feed only. Big difference then artificle LIFE support. Life should be allowed to run it's natural couse.

Argument #1: If life were running it's natural course in Terri's case, she would die of starvation because she is incapable of feeding herself. So if we're sticking to God's plan (in the case of a religious argument) he apparently wanted her to die by starvation. He was ready to take her soul to a better place, but we here on Earth are keeping her here by feeding her.

Argument #2: It was God's plan for Terri to fall into a vegetative state and for us here on Earth to keep her alive in that state indefinitely. By removing the feeding tube, we're going against God's wishes for her to remain alive. He'll take her soul when he's good and ready, and until then we should keep her alive.

As you can see, those are two completely conflicting viewpoints based on varying perceptions of what God's plans are. Problem is, NOBODY KNOWS what God's real plan is for her. So in my opinion, basing any decision regarding Terri's life on religion is completely wrong. Religion needs to stay out of the equation, because religion is open to too many interpretations.

I also don't care if the husband is a sleezebag. He probably is a sleezebag, and that's why the parents needed to step in to begin with. If he was a good guy, the parents and him probably could have sat down and worked things out. But the bottom line is this case went to the courts and by a preponderance of the evidence it was revealed that dying was what Terri would have wanted. When it comes down to it, the parents could not present any evidence that Terri would have wanted to live in this state. The husband was able to make his case, and the courts ruled that Terri would have wanted to die. That's the bottom line, this case should be decided based on what she would have wanted.

It's heart wrenching for her to have to die this way. But from a purely scientific standpoint, her brain is already dead. She's just a ball of neurological reflexes at this point. You could argue that there is a soul in there, but that would be a religious argument, open to too many interpretations, and has no place in our court system.

Philosophical questions at work here:

Is there a soul inside Terri Schiavo?

If there is a soul, is it a tortured soul that can't wait to get to heaven? Or is it a soul that is content to stay here on Earth while on a feeding tube?

Is there a God?

If there is a God, is it His plan for Terri to die of starvation? Or is it His plan to have us keep her alive until he's ready to take her?

People may think they know the answer to the above questions, but the fact is they don't. These are things you BELIEVE in, and beliefs are personal.

The final philosophical question:
How do you know your beliefs are right?