Terri Schiavo

[mosinging1986.livejournal.com]

It's unthinkable to me that this woman is going to be deliberately starved to death. She's not in a coma. She's not 'brain dead'. She's just severely disabled. She may have had (and still may have) a chance at rehabilitation to some extent, only her husband is not allowing it. Her husband, who won't divorce her, yet has a relationship and children with another woman.

She's going to suffer a long and painful death if her feeding tube is removed on Friday.

This sickens me to no end. The suffering she's going to go through, on top of the suffering she's endured all these years - and the suffering of her family, who only want to be given the right to care for her.

I can't even talk about this without shaking. How someone can do this to another human being - a person that at one time they claimed to love - and not feel an ounce of remorse is just...

But aside from that, the fact that there's not a huge outcry over it. Well, I'm crying out now. Don't let this happen. Links below. It will take a few minutes, but a woman's life hangs in the balance here.


Facts on Terri Schiavo

*****

Contact info. for your senators/congressmen

Urge them to pass the Incapacitated Person's Legal Protection Act.

*****

Contact info. for Florida State Lawmakers

*****

Text of my letter. Feel free to copy.


Dear ___,

I am writing on behalf of Terri Schiavo.

This is a woman who is not in a coma and not brain dead. She is simply disabled. Removing her feeding tube will starve her and cause a painful and needless death.

On behalf of Terri and those like her, who cannot speak for themselves, I urge you to help pass the Starvation and Dehydration of Persons with Disabilities Prevention Act.

Thank you for your time.

Comments

[lazypadawan.livejournal.com]

Given my senators are Boxhead and Frankenstein, it's pretty pointless. They have no mercy even for a full-term baby. They sure as heck wouldn't have any for poor Ms. Schiavo.

I agree this case is disgusting and sets a frightening precedent. The likes of Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy got years' worth of appeals and were executed so that there was minimal pain or suffering after what they had done. Terri Schiavo is going to be starved to death merely for being inconvenient.

[mosinging1986.livejournal.com]

Well, I know that people can drown out their own consciences. But at least it'll be harder to do if people make some noise.

[phoenix-starr.livejournal.com]

It was my understanding the woman expressed to her husband that she didn't want to be like that, if she ever got into such a situation. Personally, I'd not want to be that way either.

[kc-anathema.livejournal.com]

That's what the husband, although apparently there's reason to believe he's not a trustworthy source. Personally I have no idea what the truth is in this case, only that starvation/thirst is a horrible way to go.

[kc-anathema.livejournal.com]

Oy, wrote too fast. That's what the husband said

[sopdetly.livejournal.com]

But she's been in this "situation" since 1990. Why now, all of a sudden, is the husband so intent on killing his wife, if she truly had expressed that desire? And if she'd made a living will stating her wishes, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The fact is, her desire isn't clearly known. It's a great lesson in making a living will with specific instructions.

[phoenix-starr.livejournal.com]

Living wills are relatively new. Also, the situation with this woman is not new. I recall this making the news several times. It's been dragged though the courts and the State of FL even passed a specific law to keep her alive over her husband's objections. The congress men, senators, and the governor later said it was a mistake to pass it. His seeking release for his wife is not a new thing. He's been trying since the feeding tube. Also, it is my understanding there is NO improvement in her situation despite all these years of treatment (15?) Feeding tubes are horrible things for the most part.

[karet.livejournal.com]

Simply being hospitalized isn't treatement. He's also denied her any attempt at rehabilitation. When my grandfather had a stroke, he was put on a feeding tube. Without rehab he never would have recovered; with it he did. Not enough to drive, but he could dress himself, he could move around, he wasn't a vegetable.

[leadensky.livejournal.com]

I feel for everyone involved in this very difficult case. I have been following this with concern, as I have fairly strong opinions on human euthanasia. I also have my concerns over the role of the husband in this case, and his motivations. However, I have also been told (by neurology physicians) that the reactions of Terri to outside stimuli are no more complex than the turning of a plant toward the sun, and that her parents are reading things into her motions that are not there.

Having said all that, I can not support this law. It is poorly constructed legislature that will reduce the ability of people to control the amount of healthcare they want to receive. Furthermore, it represents an increase in the disconnect our society has between surface appearance and true living - clinging to the shell when all substance is gone.

- hossgal

[shoemaster.livejournal.com]

I pretty much agree, but removal of the feeding tube seems like such a slow way to end her life. If they're going to put her into a position that will lead to her death, why not just take decisive action that will euthanize her quickly?

[phoenix-starr.livejournal.com]

Would you rather set the precedent for snuffing her with an OD of drugs? THAT thought gives me nightmares. No nononnono... it's the husband's right to set her healthcare when she is not able. That's been the law for years and overall it is a good one. As for her "way to go" she might not have enough mind to even realize it. Overall, this is a no win situation, but I would have to side with the husband. The woman is dead in all but her shell. Let her go.

[izuko.livejournal.com]

Actually, I would rather see them kill her by drugs than by pulling the tubes. The result is the same - a compeltely dead Terry. The precedent is the same - we can kill those who are in this type of situation (re-worded to make it less politically loaded).

Only the method is different. I want them to do it this way for two reasons.

- If she is alive (and we've used "we don't know" to justify killing her - well, if we don't know then that falls on both sides) and can feel, it will be less painful for her.

- I want everyone who's supporting this to have to face exactly what they're doing. Right or wrong, you're ending a life, and doing it passively is no better than doing it actively. If you feel what your doing is right, then do it all the way. Simply pulling the tubes seems to be sugar-coating the truth. "We didn't kill her, we allowed her to die." No, you killed her.

[mosinging1986.livejournal.com]

Absolutely right. We change the words on things simply to ease our conscience and not really feel the impact of what we're doing. The truth *is* ugly. I'd much prefer if people were brutally honest, because it's a brutal reality.

[leadensky.livejournal.com]

No, you killed her.

No. I have to strongly disagree with that. At this point, the doctors and the tech are keeping her from dying. It is very arguable that this is an unnatural state of "not dead".

(And yes, we use medical tech all the time to keep people from dying that would otherwise, rightly, be dead. Like, say, measles vaccines.)

Right or wrong, you're ending a life, and doing it passively is no better than doing it actively.

That is a value judgment that not everyone shares. I will not go so far as to claim that everyone has their own 'truth', but in this case, there are people who do strongly feel that 'letting someone die' is less wrong than actually 'taking action to cause death now.'

I would argue, in fact, that removing a feeding tube (and I'd really like to know *what* kind of tube placement they did) from a person with no voluntary muscle control, no swallowing ability, and no ability to turn herself is, in fact, a middle ground between injection euthanasia (which is *not* legal in this case) and the slow death from complications of bedridden that awaits Terri.

My biggest issue with this case is people who insist there is an easy answer here. This is perhaps the worst case scenerio one could come up with, if one was to go out and craft a case to debate right-to-life/right-to-die.

- hossgal

[leadensky.livejournal.com]

I have to agree with phoenix star - the step towards deliberate euthanasia is one I am very nervous about.

Also - please understand that feeding tubes are not without their problems as well. The human body is *not* designed to take nutrition that way.

As I said before, this is a bad situation all around.

- hg

[rainfallsautumn.livejournal.com]

I completely agree.

[okoge.livejournal.com]

I have also been told (by neurology physicians) that the reactions of Terri to outside stimuli are no more complex than the turning of a plant toward the sun

And we all know how infallible doctors are, what with that direct link to god, and all..

her parents are reading things into her motions that are not there.

Rather like the nonsensical movements of a fetus, right?

[leadensky.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry, I didn't understand what you said. It seems you were reacting to something else, rather than to what I said.

Could you rephrase your comment, please?

And, next time? Pick a different icon.

- hossgal

[okoge.livejournal.com]

...

[leadensky.livejournal.com]

You want to try that again?

- hg

Er, maybe not:

[carbonelle.livejournal.com]

Your neurologists may be operating under false assumptions: Like the doctor in this article (http://www.livejournal.com/community/therightfangirl/143546.html?nc=1&style=mine) who assumes in his discussion of Terri's "persistent vegetative state" that she's had an MRI to confirm same. That's not the case.

Follow the link. The problem isn't that the doctors agree with Terri's husband, but that they haven't been allowed to examine her much less treat her. Has her husband left it too late? Maybe so, but we'll never know unless independent specialists are allowed to examine this young woman.

And they are not. And that datum alone ought to be damning.

Re: Er, maybe not:

[leadensky.livejournal.com]

That's a bad link. Could you give me a good one?

- hossgal

Re: Er, maybe not:

[carbonelle.livejournal.com]

Whoops. My bad Here it is (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/johansen200503160848.asp)

[terrylj.livejournal.com]

This does seem like a no-win situation. But I'd have to agree that there's a HUGE difference between taking someone (who is brain-dead and supported only by machinery) off of life support, so that they go quickly and easily, within a few minutes, vs. deliberately depriving them of nourishment so that they suffer over several days. I don't care whether she shows no more response than a plant, she is still a living human being who doesn't deserve this.

He said. She said.

[carbonelle.livejournal.com]

Which would you rather have as the default condition: Barring any other mediating influence (e.g. the money and the means for your care exist, as do a group of people who love you and want to provide same)

1. You are removed from life-support at the request of one relative who stands to benefit from your death.

2. You are removed from life support IF-and-only-IF you have specified so in writing or to at least two people who do not have a vested interest in either your continued maintenance or death.

I trend libertarian and support the right of competent adults to commit suicide, but this one seems like a no-brainer to me: No-one standing to make several hundred thousand dollars upon my death should be allowed within an inch of the responsibility to make life-or-death decisions for me.

Re: He said. She said.

[leadensky.livejournal.com]

No-one standing to make several hundred thousand dollars upon my death should be allowed within an inch of the responsibility to make life-or-death decisions for me.

Could you expand on this? Do you mean to say that family members mentioned in a will may not be appointed guardians for those stricken by disease or injury? Or anyone named as beneficiary in an insurance policy?

My biggest concern with the proposed legislation (aside from its association with this very difficult case) is that it will have the effect of removing responsibility and decision from family members for caring for their loved ones, and put that responsibility on the state. Which, as someone with some libertarian inclinations, I find unwise.

- hossgal