i can understand why someone would feel the need to quickly put a loved one out of their misery if they were truly suffering, but that isnt the case here. What kind of doctor would think it is humane to let someone die of starvation and thirst?

I understand the subjective argument, and the absolute sanctity of life in all forms is a comforting standard, but I don't think you can make a direct comparison between a cognitive, if chronically painful or ill, state, and a persistent vegetative state.

"What is a persistent vegetative state? According to the National Institute for Neurological Disorders and Stroke people in PVS "have lost their thinking abilities and awareness of their surroundings, but retain non-cognitive function and normal sleep patterns. Even though those in a persistent vegetative state lose their higher brain functions, other key functions such as breathing and circulation remain relatively intact. Spontaneous movements may occur, and the eyes may open in response to external stimuli. They may even occasionally grimace, cry, or laugh. Although individuals in a persistent vegetative state may appear somewhat normal, they do not speak and they are unable to respond to commands." People suffering from PVS can generally be distinguished from afflicted but cognitively intact patients who suffer from "locked-in syndrome" by the fact that "locked in" patients can track visual stimuli and use eye blinks for communication. "

For all intensive purposes, it's reasonable to argue that Schiavo is dead.

http://www.reason.com/links/links102303.shtml

Thanks for your input Bill. I've read on other web sites that Terri could benefit from some kinds of rehabilitative therapy. How much so, I don't know. But still, I think it's wrong to condemn this woman to death solely based on the hearsay evidence of her no-good husband. If the judge agrees to let Terri starve to death, then we'll be setting a dangerous precedent. Think of how much easier it will become in the future to euthanize a person against his or her will. And I don't want that husband to attain such a victory.

i think the moral of this story is that everybody needs a living will.

That's a very valid perspective. Me? I'm sort of conflicted about the whole thing.

This quote: At issue Monday was "Terri's Law," which the Florida Supreme Court ruled unanimously was an unconstitutional effort to override court rulings in the MSNBC article kinda says it all if you want to define judicial activism. It seems to me that if the people speak through their legislature, the court has no further say in the matter. The Florida Supreme Court is a joke. They may say its 'unconstitutional' but I think they really just like making the law themselves.

This is starting to get scary. First its the unborn, now its the 'persistant vegatative state', next it will be 'persistant disabled state', then 'persistant elderly state', etc. Bill, ask Terri's parents if she's dead. I would submit to you that their opinion is the only one that matters.

Bill, ask Terri's parents if she's dead. I would submit to you that their opinion is the only one that matters.

Uh, by that logic, the opinion of an adult woman's husband overrides mom and dad's opinion.

Bill,

You missed the point. I suspect you are more interested in the legal aspect then the moral aspect anyway so we'll leave it at that. I hope your fate never has to be determined by a person who has everything to gain and nothing to lose by your death.

Brewfan: "I hope your fate never has to be determined by a person who has everything to gain and nothing to lose by your death."

in other words he hopes you never get married Bill

I've got to chime in here: I've never understood why the fact that someone is in a "persistent vegetative state" means they should be killed. If she's "dead to the world" it's not like she's in any pain. So she's basically useless to society: it's not like the nation scrapes by on the edge of survival and can only afford to let the fittest live -- we can well afford to support plenty of brain-damaged people in comfort and plenty. And her needs certainly are few: she's no Paris Hilton or (insert name of some other greedy, spoiled cele*bslut whose every moment of existence is somehow deemed vital to society by Our Betters in the Media). Give her an intravenous feed, a cushion to lie on, and someone to turn her over and clean her and she's happy -- or at least, not unhappy.

I can only think that the reason so many people want her dead is not for her sake at all, but because her existence just bums them out. Her ex-husband, if he is the slightest bit human, certainly must feel sensations of burning shame instead of the pleasures he thinks are his due -- if he didn't he wouldn't be so intent upon "putting her out of her misery"; he'd have been content to palm her off on her parents and go about his life. Actually, there seems to be two dead (though breathing) people in this story -- one's mentally dead, one is spiritually so.

*blacklist blocks that word

The above was mine, by the way.

i think we should take these types of decisions out of the hands of family and doctors and put the responsibility where it belongs. In the hands of giant indians.

I've often been told you shouldn't post angry. Well, where's the fun in that?

Oh fine, then I'll just say two things for now:
1)Comparing Terri Schiavo with someone who is currently authoring books is just ignorant
2)The fact that someone's a scumbag adulterer doesn't have anything to do whether or not they can legally act on your behalf

- Cliff
(And from what I understand, even though it defies common sense dying from dehydration/starvation is actually pretty peaceful and painless)
(ok, three things)

Cliff, I don't understand why you're angry.

So what if Terri Schiavo is not a published author. Being in a persistent vegetative state is not a just cause for the death penalty. It's not like we, as a country are only able to support our "fittest" of citizens as Andrea says above. If Terri's family, who loves her, wants her alive, then we should honor their wishes and give life a chance.

Also regarding the status of scumbag Michael Schiavo as Terri's legal guardian, there are laws on the books that say a guardian must have a good moral character (or something to that effect). Whoring around, fathering two illegitimate children, lying about wanting to rehabilitate your wife, then doing everything you can do kill your defenseless wife, does not constitute good moral character.

Frankly, it looks like you view Terri as just an inconvenient blob of matter to be disposed of ASAP. But she's a human being. Then again, if you see human beings as nothing more than highly evolved animals, then I can see how you would come to such a cold conclusion. But for people who consider themselves to be more than just sophisticated animals, but rather, created in G-d's image, then that view is repugnant.

Andrea -

I've got to chime in here: I've never understood why the fact that someone is in a "persistent vegetative state" means they should be killed. If she's "dead to the world" it's not like she's in any pain. So she's basically useless to society: it's not like the nation scrapes by on the edge of survival and can only afford to let the fittest live

There can be a crippling financial component, in some situations.

Frankly, it looks like you view Terri as just an inconvenient blob of matter to be disposed of ASAP.

Classy. Rather than respond in kind, I'll wait until tomorrow to post more on this - I should be more rational by then (well, as rational as I get anyway).

But let me ask one question of Zelda (and my apologies if you've already answered somewhere else) - if Terri had written down her desire to not have her life prolonged through artificial means, would you be ok with the decision to remove her feeding tube?

Because if the answer is "no" I don't think there's any point in continuing our conversation.

There are millions of young American Indian Giants trapped in a life of poverty on Americas resevations. I think every hospital/nursing home should be encouraged to hire one of these hordworking people. With your support these Giant Indians can get the supplies they so desperately need.
As our paid spokesperson Mr. Paul Anka always says:" The Giant Indians get brooms!"
Please donate to the American Indian Smothering fund.

Bill wrote:

There can be a crippling financial component, in some situations.

The financial situation was taken care of when the husband won several lawsuits, arguing that he needed several million dollars to maintain Terri's health and wellbeing for the rest of her natural life (estimated at 50 more years).

The husband conveniently changed his mind about his wife's wellbeing when the money began flowing in. Then he moved her into a hospice, cut off rehabilitation (which had been working), and started dating.

Another thing: the husband may have caused Terri's condition in the first place. He was the only one with her when she collapsed, and his story about it and subsequent events don't agree with several other witnesses.

Finally, food is not artificial means of support. Would anyone here like to be declared unfit to live because they couldn't raise food to their mouths or swallow?

And Chris, try going without food and water for two days (say, over the weekend), then tell me how painless and peaceful it is.

Cliff, if Terri had left behind an authentic written will saying she would not want to be kept alive under aftificial means if she became severly disabled, then I would probably feel differently. That's why this whole thing bothers me so much. Since Terri did not leave a written will, I think it's wrong to just go on the hearsay evidence of her sleazy husband when Terri can't defend herself. So since we can't know what Terri really wants, I say give her the benefit of the doubt and keep her alive. Does that answer your question?

Zelda - thanks for the answer (and getting my name right, ahem)

First, for those following along at home, I think this is a useful site - it has a good timeline on the whole thing and, even if you disagree with him, links to the relevant court decisions so you can see for yourself.

Which brings me to my next point - y'all don't have a legal leg to stand on. Terri's had her day in court. Hell, she's had years. The court has heard all the accusations about Michael Schiavo. They concluded differently. They also did not "go on the hearsay evidence of her sleazy husband". The court determined - for themselves, Michael could only petition to have the tube removed - that Teresa would not want to continue living like she is with no hope of recovery.

And yes, they also gave due consideration to the question of whether Terri can recover. Both sides got to give their arguments, as well as the independant court-appointed medical expert. the court concluded there was no evidence that any treatment or therapy could reverse the effects of the death of all or nearly all of her cerebral cortex.

She's never going to get better - the claims of an osteopath from Clearwater notwithstanding.

So the central question was: would Terri wish to continue living given her condition and prognosis? Her husband said "no", her parents disagreed, and the court decided that Terri would want to die. Now, you may not agree, but it's not an unreasonable conclusion to make.

Now, what was unreasonable was that God-awful "Terri's Law" that the Florida legislature passed. Jesus, have you people looked at it? There's a reason the Fla. Supreme Ct. voted 7-0 against it. Proponents of the act, who I imagine are pretty likely to pull the big "R" lever in elections, supported a law that essentially took a dump on the principle of separation of powers and then wiped its ass on the constitution. WTF? You know, usually "$Name's Law"s are passed to prevent someone else from ending up like $Name. Not in this case, as the law was written to apply pretty much only to Terri and would expire after 15 days.

I will laugh at anyone who justifies it as "if it saves one life...". Ha ha, I will laugh. Then I'll tell you to go back to the bleeding-heart liberals over at DU.

Seriously though, this law was a freakin' farce. I'd be embarassed if I lived in Florida and this was the kind of government I had.

Finally, let me say this. It's perfectly reasonable to disagree on whether Terri's tube should be removed. It's not so much to make it your primary argument that the opposition is comprised of greedy scum, and that anyone who disagrees with you is some sort of sociopath.

"Frankly" Zelda, it looks like you were being a self-righteous ass who believes they have a monopoly on morality. But maybe that's just the kind of "cold conclusion" a godless heathen like me would reach.

Sue -
Your points, in no particular order:

It's Cliff, not Chris, although looking at this thread maybe I don't want people knowing even my first name.

I haven't seen all the papers, but from what I've read her husband won $1 million (I've also seen $1.7 million) in a lawsuit - not "several million".

She was transferred to a nursing home afterwards, not hospice. Big difference.

Dying - not temporary cessation, but dying - from dehydration/starvation at the end of life is supposed to be peaceful. The organs in the body shutting down causes a sopoforic effect. But maybe the sources I read were wrong or lying to make the survivors feel better. Well, if it's painful that's what hospice is for.

Unfounded "Michael=Evil" accusations aren't particularly persuasive, considering a court decision called him a "loving husband" and "diligent watchguard". Anyway, his moral fiber is irrelevant to the question of whether Terri Schiavo should continue receiving artificial nutrition.

No Sue, food is not artificial. But having a tube surgically attached to your stomach wall is. Maybe you disagree, in which case I never want to eat dinner at your house.

As to whether someone would want to have artificial nutrition or hydration removed (not "declared unfit to live" - Jesus, lose the hyperbole) if they are unable to swallow AND they are in a persistent vegetative state? Hell yes! It's called a "living will", have you never heard of one? They're hardly unknown - in fact, I'm looking at mine just now:

"I, $Me. being of sound etc., desire that my life not be prolonged by extraordinary means or by artificial nutrition or hydration if my condition is determined to be terminal and uncurable or if I am diagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state." Etc, etc.

Fairly clear-cut for a legal document, I think. Do people really want to continue to live in such a state? And be a financial drain on their family? Well, fine, go ahead, but that's not for me - or a lot of others.

So someone tell me - what is it about this case that is so involving to others? I can understand her parents and husband being emotionally involved, obviously. I, and people like me, who've had to deal with end-of-life issues have some connection (this, by the way, is why the moral high-handedness that permeates this case really grates on me). But what makes a large group of uninvolved strangers want to jump in with both feet?

Is it a religious thing? Is this case some sort of proxy for abortion? What is it about this case that takes it from (presumably) fairly dry legal/philosophical issues straight to fervent advocacy and demonizing of the opposition? I mean, it's got to be either religion or politics and I don't see that much of a political aspect.

Anyone?

Cliff,

For now, all I have to say is that judging from your previous comments, having you call me a "self righteous ass" is a compliment.

Zelda,

Do you suppose Cliff is 'projecting'? :)