Life support

[Shelly]

Thougts on this? I know if I was basically a vegetable, I'd want the plug pulled.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=532108

Man Cleared to Remove Wife's Feeding Tube
Florida Judge Gives Husband Permission to Remove Feeding Tube From Brain-Damaged Wife March 18
By VICKIE CHACHERE
The Associated Press

Feb. 25, 2005 - A judge gave Terri Schiavo's husband permission to remove the brain-damaged woman's feeding tube in three weeks, handing him a victory in his effort to carry out what he says were his wife's wishes not to be kept alive artificially.

The ruling by Pinellas Circuit Court Judge George Greer will allow the husband, Michael Schiavo, to order the tube removed at 1 p.m. on March 18. In the meantime, the woman's parents, who want her kept alive, are expected to ask another court to block the order from taking effect.

The judge wrote that he was no longer comfortable granting delays in the long-running family feud, which has been going on for nearly seven years and has been waged in every level of Florida's court system. He said the case must end.

"The court is no longer comfortable granting stays simply upon the filings of new motions," Greer wrote. "There will always be 'new' issues."

The tube keeps the 41-year-old disabled woman alive. The husband, Michael Schiavo, says he is seeking to carry out his wife's wishes not to be kept alive artificially.

The decision came on the 15th anniversary of Terri Schiavo's collapse, when a chemical imbalance brought on by an eating disorder caused her heart to stop beating.

The parents were at the Pinellas Park hospice where Terri Schiavo is being cared for when Greer's order was issued. They were planning an afternoon news conference.

Greer previously granted Terri Schiavo's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, a stay until 5 p.m. Friday.

The judge made his decision after pleadings from the parents that they need more time to pursue additional medical tests which might prove their daughter has more mental capabilities than previously thought.

State officials also are trying to intervene in the case. Attorneys for the Schindlers said the state wants a 60-day stay to investigate allegations that she is being mistreated by being denied appropriate medical care and rehabilitation.

The Schindlers and their son-in-law have fought each other in court since the late 1990s on whether Terri Schiavo should live or die. The two sides have battled through scores of opinions and rulings and tens of thousands of pages of filings.

The feud has taken on elements of a soap opera, with allegations that it began as a fight over more than $1 million awarded to Terri Schiavo in a medical malpractice case which her husband stood to inherit. Michael Schiavo has also been accused by his in-laws of having a conflict of interest in wanting his wife dead because he has started a new family with another woman.

The Schindlers do not believe their daughter is in a persistent vegetative state as court-appointed doctors have ruled.

A leading Vatican cardinal also has weighed in on behalf of keeping Terri Schiavo alive.

"If Mr. Schiavo legally succeeded in provoking the death of his wife, this would not only be tragic in itself, but it would be a serious step toward legally approving euthanasia in the United States," Cardinal Renato Martino, the head of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, told Vatican Radio on Thursday.

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Copyright © 2005 ABC News Internet Ventures

[Hook Dem]

I know this is a highly controversial thing but I personally agree with Shelly. In fact, I have made my wishes known to my wife. Unplug me! It's an individual choice but maybe it should be put in writing and have it notorized so all these court proceedings would not be necessary.

[MannyIsGod]

Euthanazia (sp?) in general should be allowed. I'm tired of people not being given the right to die.

[tsb2000]

That's the issue in this case- she didn't have a will. Sad to think about.

[NameDropper]

When people have "hope" it is hard to argue against them.

[Shelly]

I'm surprised they had any hope after 15 years.

My dad's friend was on life support after complications after he had bypass surgery--This was weeks after he had been released from the hospital. Anyway, his wife and daughter agreed to take him off of it and he died within 20 minutes. I can only imagine what they had to go through to make that decision.

[exstatic]

This is a weird case because concerned parties are in vehement disagreement. My solution would be:
1) Grant the husband a no fuss, no obligation divorce. He would have NO further responsibilites to Terri of ANY kind. I think that's probably what he's worried about, them coming back at him for the bills.
2) Let the parents provide for the daughter's care, since they appear to really want to. To insist on removing her feeding tube makes him appear as a kind of monster, wanting her to die so he can get on with his life.

[Shelly]

Remember this?

KAREN ANN QUINLAN • Medical Patient
Karen Ann Quinlan was the first modern icon of the right-to-die debate. The 21-year-old Quinlan collapsed at a party after swallowing alcohol and the tranquilizer Valium on 14 April 1975. Doctors saved her life, but she suffered brain damage and lapsed into a "persistent vegetative state." Her family waged a much-publicized legal battle for the right to remove her life support machinery. They succeeded, but in a final twist, Quinlan kept breathing after the respirator was unplugged. She remained in a coma for almost 10 years in a New Jersey nursing home until her 1985 death.

[1369]

I know this is a highly controversial thing but I personally agree with Shelly. In fact, I have made my wishes known to my wife. Unplug me! It's an individual choice but maybe it should be put in writing and have it notorized so all these court proceedings would not be necessary.

Hook, it's known as a "Directive To Physicians".

[desflood]

The irony, of course, is that this was all caused by her EATING DISORDER.

[Slomo]

Euthanazia (sp?) in general should be allowed. I'm tired of people not being given the right to die.
Although I share Shelly's opinion and yours, I remember a debate about Euthanazia that made a serious point.

If you legalize Euthanazia, how do you regulate it? Just the simple question as to who makes the decision? The family? The physicians? Church? Life (and death) is such an individual issue that I think it should remain a personal choice, with as little outside regulation as possible. I also think that if you do not want to be kept in an indefinite state of vegetation, you should make provisions for it and make your choice known to your family since this is the only way to help them in an already horrible situation.

[ididnotnothat]

February 22, 2005
Oregon's Assisted Suicide Law To Be Reviewed

By HOPE YEN
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Tuesday said it will hear a challenge to the nation's only assisted suicide law, taking up a case embracing the Bush administration's appeal to stop doctors from helping terminally ill patients die more quickly.

Justices will review a lower court ruling that said the U.S. government cannot sanction or hold doctors criminally liable for prescribing overdoses under Oregon's voter-approved Death with Dignity Act. Since 1998, more than 170 people - most with cancer - have used the law to end their lives.

Arguments will be heard in the court's next term, which begins in October.

Statement from Gov. Kulongoski

Former Attorney General John Ashcroft filed the appeal last November, on the day his resignation was announced by the White House, arguing that physician-assisted suicide is not a "legitimate medical purpose" and that doctors take an oath to heal patients, not help them die.

Oregon countered by saying that regulation of doctors generally has been the sole responsibility of the states. Ashcroft has no authority under the federal Controlled Substances Act to punish doctors because Congress intended the law only to prevent illegal drug trafficking, the state argued.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Oregon last May.

"The attorney general's unilateral attempt to regulate general medical practices historically entrusted to state lawmakers interferes with the democratic debate about physician-assisted suicide," wrote Judge Richard Tallman in the 2-1 opinion.

In 1997, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that individuals had no constitutional right to die, upholding state bans on physician-assisted suicide. In an opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the court suggested it was up to the individual states to decide whether to permit or ban the practice.

The issue now before the high court is whether Congress could step in to prohibit assisted suicide if a state chose to allow it, and, if so, whether the federal Controlled Substances Act authorizes the Justice Department to do so.

Oregon voters approved the law in 1994 and overwhelmingly affirmed it three years later when it was returned to the ballot following a failed legal challenge that stalled its implementation.

The law allows terminally ill patients with less than six months to live to request a lethal dose of drugs. Two doctors must confirm the diagnosis and determine the patient to be mentally competent to make the request.

The Oregon challenge is the second right-to-die case to come before the Supreme Court this year. Last month, justices rejected Florida Gov. Jeb Bush's appeal to keep Terri Schiavo, who is severely brain-damaged, on life support over the objections of her husband.

Schiavo, whose legal fight is continuing, was scheduled to be taken off life support as early as Tuesday.

In 1990, the Supreme Court ruled that terminally ill people may refuse treatment that would otherwise keep them alive, but declined in the 1997 case to extend that constitutional right to obtaining medication that would put them to death.

The case is Gonzales v. Oregon, 04-623.

(Copyright 2005 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

[CrazyOne]

I'll go with Ex here... there is BIG disagreement on her state of being... his doctor's use the "persistant veggie state" and her parents claim she is clearly responsive to stimuli. She doesn't have a "plug" to pull, she can breathe on her own... the husband wants to have food and water taken away, so that she will die of thirst/starvation.

[desflood]

Although I sympathize with the parents, they're clearly in denial. The doctors have told them that the "responses" their daughter has had are reflexes, nothing more. But I also agree with Ex. A simple no-obligation divorce would be the best way to end this.

[2centsworth]

In an opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the court suggested it was up to the individual states to decide whether to permit or ban the practice.

Totally agree. We should keep the federal courts out of this.

Regarding Shaivo, it's my understanding they have to starve her to death by removing her feeding tube. Is that true?

[Hook Dem]

I'm not saying I agree or disagree but here is another perspective.................... I Would Never Divorce My Wife! But I’d Kill Her.

Ashley Horne



I have to admit, I haven’t followed the Terri Schiavo case closely over the years. But one doesn’t need to know all the details of this case to realize that Terri will soon die because her husband would rather kill her then simply divorce her and turn over guardianship to Terri’s parents.

In a stunning display of marital fidelity, in the fifteen years since his 26-year-old wife succumbed to massive brain damage under mysterious circumstances that some believe he caused, Michael Schiavo has happily maintained an adulterous relationship with his longtime girlfriend and managed to sire two children with her. All while remaining married to his disabled wife.

Should not all women be so lucky to find such stand-up husbands?

Even better, Michael happily admitted to Larry King that his mistress has really “done a lot” for Terri – even more than Terri’s own mother. Imagine that! Maybe when Terri gets better, she and Michael’s mistress can be best of friends. What woman wouldn’t want to bond with her husband’s hooker?

Evidencing his serious commitment to “for better or worse,” Michael has done everything within his power to try to kill Terri since she fell ill. He’s withheld her therapy. He’s even tried twice to starve her but Lady Justice just can’t seem to let him remove the feeding tube long enough to get the job done.

Yet he now seems poised to succeed. An emergency stay preventing her feeding tube from being removed will expire this Friday.

Michael’s argument is - if I can say this with a straight face - that killing Terri is what she would want. And who wouldn’t believe him? He’s obviously displayed an unparalleled intuition into his disabled wife’s true needs by abandoning her at the hospital to shack up with his girlfriend after collecting a fat settlement from the malpractice suit.

Yes, Michael Schiavo, of all people, knows exactly what his wife wants.

Michael was exposed as a liar again when his father-in-law released a tape of Terri laughing and trying to talk after Michael swore that she was beyond rehabilitation and in a “persistent” vegetative state. Terri even tried to escape from her chair upon hearing the news that she might be killed. Yeah, that’s a woman who wants to die.

Terri’s parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, have begged their son-in-law to divorce their daughter and hand over guardianship to them. But he refuses. What could be his reason? Michael has clearly moved on with his life, in the sense that he’s stealing his wife’s money to make a good life for his “second” family.

Why does Michael want so badly to kill Terri when he could simply divorce her and be done with it?

It’s a combination of things, really. First, Michael’s likely to get no money out of a divorce - so what’s the point. Second, and perhaps more importantly, a divorce court may order Michael to take full or at least partial financial responsibility for Terri’s care for the duration of her life. And why risk that scenario? I mean, the man has a mistress and two other mouths to feed!

Plus, why should Michael endure a time-consuming divorce proceeding when he could free himself up for marriage number two in just a few short days by starving his wife to death?

Finally, even if Michael wanted to back out now, his lawyer wouldn’t hear of it. The man has built his career on the deaths of the elderly, sick and disabled.

Yet, on the off chance that Michael Schiavo grows a conscience, here’s some advice: Divorce Terri, drop your crusade, and leave the Schindlers what little happiness they have left with their daughter.

And then hope to God that what goes around doesn’t come around.
I Would Never Divorce My Wife! But I’d Kill Her.



Ashley Horne

[GoldToe]

God help them all.

[Shelly]

I really didn't follow this story that closely, but damn...He's an ass.