Has the Schiavo case Become a Political Football?

Foxfyre wrote:

Walter writes

Quote:
Well, yesterday the pro-Bush votes were 51%, today it is down to 50%

Yes, even a cursory review of Rasumussen's daily polls--each result shown is an average of results of the previous I think week, or is it three days? I can't remember--will show a one or two point fluctuation as normal. The point is, there was some negative public reaction when it was being reported by the talking heads that the Bush administration and Congress were overstepping their constitutional authority, violating states rights, etc. etc. etc. It appears now that the pendulum has again swung and, once people have time to really think it all through, are now more sympathetic with all efforts to defend Terri Schiavo's right to life.

And the right to die, who should determine that?

0 Replies

The right to die is being debated on Phoenix's other active thread in this forum.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

The right to die is being debated on Phoenix's other active thread in this forum.

as is the right to live .... can't really have one without the other can we .... kind of hard to separate. I take it you don't have an answer.

0 Replies

Question.... what would have changed for Terri had her parents won their case?

0 Replies

My living will states clearly that if the doctors have declared little or no chance that recovery is possible, I will not be kept alive via heart machine, respirator, etc. It further says I shall have the right to refuse food but that does not extend to hydration. My desire is that the family not have to incur unnecessary stress and pain by requiring a procedure they do not agree with. My medical power of attorney gives the family the right to decide if their concur with the doctors' findings before life support is withdrawn. I trust them to make the best decision for me and all concerned.

Is there ever any justification for starving/dehydrating a person to death without such clear instructions. In my mind, no there is not. Further I don't believe Terri would have intentionally put her parents through that.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

My living will states clearly that if the doctors have declared little or no chance that recovery is possible, I will not be kept alive via heart machine, respirator, etc. It further says I shall have the right to refuse food but that does not extend to hydration. My desire is that the family not have to incur unnecessary stress and pain by requiring a procedure they do not agree with. My medical power of attorney gives the family the right to decide if their concur with the doctors' findings before life support is withdrawn. I trust them to make the best decision for me and all concerned.

Is there ever any justification for starving/dehydrating a person to death without such clear instructions. In my mind, no there is not. Further I don't believe Terri would have intentionally put her parents through that.

So if Terri had left a piece of paper stating her desire not to be a vegetable, folowing her wishes, according to you, would have been unjustified?

edited for correctionof term 'illegal'

0 Replies

It would have changed the scenario. Again, I do not believe Terri Schiavo would have put her parents through that. I wouldn't. Would you? How many of us would require that our loved ones watch us die in the way Terri Schiavo died? These are not easy questions. But if Terri had included that in a living will, then yes, I think she should be allowed to refuse food and water.

0 Replies

Fox, can you envision a situation where, even though you have a living will and a medical power of attorney, there is discord among your family and they cannot come to a mutually agreeable outcome? When you talk about 'family' and it covers spouse and biological family, there are cases when there are written yet ambiguous instructions, which I believe yours are because they require your family to concur on their choice. Assuming you are unable to participate in the discussion, the only recourse is to fall to the courts for resolution. You are trusting your family to make the best decision for all concerned, but what if they can't come to an agreement about what that decision is?

Should your case become a national topic of discussion? Should the state and federal legislatures be used to try to interpret your wishes? Should the President of the United States and the Supreme Court be asked to intercede?

You make a distinction between food and water. It is easy to provide hydration via IV fluids. An abdominal feeding tube is not required for hydration. If the feeding tube is withdrawn but hydration is supplied by IV then the outcome is only delayed by an additional two weeks or so. Are you advocating that it is permissable to deny food but not hydration when the only outcome of that action is to prolong the very pain you say you don't want the family to endure?

0 Replies

Well said Jb

0 Replies

My desire is to cause my family as little pain as possible and I have set up my living will to give them permission for every possible option. In both my family and my husband's family, we have had to make decisions regarding discontinuing life support. In all cases there was no problem. We certainly were not put in the position of having to agree to an order that would intentionally kill somebody.

That is the difference in these situations and in the case of Terri Schiavo. She wasn't allowed to die. She was killed. We can debate til the cows come home whether she was still in that body, but the body was killed. That's a fact. And I will never put my family in the position of having to do that to me nor will I agree to doing that to another human being ever.

0 Replies

J_B wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
J_B wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:

This ain't rocket science. TS was being deliberately killed as more trouble than she was worth, which is really the essence of what we object to, and is somewhat different from just poor facilities (although, of course, any decent person wants sick people to have good care). And it was happening in the headlines, so, naturally we discuss it. We simply have a gut reaction that this is immoral, and you see vast right wing conspiracies. Like it or not, most of us just think it's immoral, and have no agenda beyond that. Yes, I'm sure that there are people who exploit anything for selfish reasons, but most of us just have a problem with the ethics of euthanizing people for convenience, particularly when they only require food and water to live. Ascribing false motives to your opponents, for which you have no evidence, and which are hard to disprove, is a very easy way of gaining debating points without countering someone's statements.

I disagree. The only reason this is an issue is because there was a difference of opinion among Terri's loved ones as to what was best for Terri. How many times a day is someone taken off life support or have a feeding tube removed and we hear *nothing* about it because there is no disagreement within the family? I don't know the answer to that question, but the only reason we are having this discussion is because her loved ones couldn't come to an agreement regarding her care. This is, was, and should only ever have been an issue between Michael and the Shindlers. It has nothing to do with someone being deliberately killed because she was more trouble than she was worth. It is only about what was best for this individual and the disagreement between her husband and her families. My opinion is that it's none of our business.

Taking a person off food is a bit different from taking her off dialysis. The legislature can, and should, regulate what acts are morally acceptable for killing hospital patients, since some are ethical, and some is not.

Really, so you have a generic issue with removing nutritional life support from any patient even in the absense of disagreement among the family? You're saying that once nutritional life support is implemented, it should be illegal to remove it in all cases until the patient succumbs to another consequence of their illness, even when the patient has indicated not wanting to be supported through artificial means? So when abnominal feeding tubes are installed as a temporary measure, while determining the likelihood of recovery, we should legislate that nutritional support never be withdrawn? We should sustain everyone who can be sustain through abdominal feeding unless they are unable to support life due to other causes?

I return to my original question. Are we having this discussion because there was a difference of opinion among the family, or are you advocating that nutritional support never be discontinued once implemented? I believe it is the former.

No, I am not saying anything of the kind, nor do I believe anything of the kind. I am saying what I said.

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

I'm with J_B on this one... Kinda demolishes the whole "Terri's been murdered" argument, too.

Yes, and all he had to do was put words in my mouth.

0 Replies

Her death was by her own demand not to be kept alive by artifical means ie. feeding tube. If she had the ability to eat and drink normally he would be alive today.. She died of natural causes. To say she was killed is beyond .... uninformed.

0 Replies

Gelisgesti wrote:

Her death was by her own demand not to be kept alive by artifical means ie. feeding tube. If she had the ability to eat and drink normally he would be alive today.. She died of natural causes. To say she was killed is beyond .... uninformed.

Her huisband and his siblings claim she once told him this. At the same trial, a few other people claimed she told them the opposite. She wrote nothing down. You simply have no basis for claiming that you know what she would want in this case, or at the very best, you have flimsy, ambiguous evidence.

To say she was killed, indicates.....someone who knows what killed means. If someone denied you food and stopped anyone else from feeding you, I guess you would have died of natural causes too.

0 Replies

You have to believe Michael Schiavo to believe that Geli. I don't believe him. And if withholding food and water from a patient unable to obtain it for himself/herself is not killing the person, then we shouldn't concern ourselves with feeding anybody who can't feed himself/herself should we? If that's not killing people then let them fend for themselves. And if you think that unreasnable, then whom among us is devine enough to decide whose live has value and whose doesn't? Who should be fed and who shouldn't?

0 Replies

Someone needs to pull the plug on this thread.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

{QUOTE]Taking a person off food is a bit different from taking her off dialysis. The legislature can, and should, regulate what acts are morally acceptable for killing hospital patients, since some are ethical, and some is not.

No, I am not saying anything of the kind, nor do I believe anything of the kind. I am saying what I said.[/quote]

I didn't put any words in your mouth. My response was fully in the form of questions, not statements. You said that the laws should be enacted to determine acceptable acts for killing someone, inferring that stopping dialysis is ok, but removing a feeding tube is not. How is it different if someone is provided dialysis for a while but then the process is discontinued vs someone having a feeding tube installed while determining the long range outcome and then having it removed?

And you still haven't answered my question. Would you be having this discussion if the Shindlers had agreed with Michael and it was a third party who was trying to intervene?

0 Replies

She was denied nothing but a feeding tube .... her family could have brought her food or water any time .... SHE COULD NOT SWALLOW. Look when you don't eat or drink you die, it's only natural.

0 Replies

J_B, Good point about the "what if" scenario if the Shindler's agreed with Michael. Only our stupid Congress would get involved. Those Conservatives have lost all credibility when they speak about "less government intrusion," "the sanctity of marriage" and "separation of powers." They still don't "get it."

0 Replies

Geli writes

Quote:

She was denied nothing but a feeding tube .... her family could have brought her food or water any time

Her family was denied the right to put a cool damp cloth to her lips or moisten her mouth. People were arrested trying to smuggle water in to her. Nurses and aides who testified that Terri at one time was able to take small amounts of soft foods and liquids orally were ordered to stop giving these to her. Terri Schiavo was intentionally killed.

0 Replies

Has the Schiavo case Become a Political Football?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know