Voice Your Opinion: What should happen to Terri Schiavo?

[Higher_Desire]

I've been following this story for a while now, and personally, I don't see why there is such a big controversy over it. Things like this happen every day in our hospitals. I mean, the woman has been in a vegatative state for 15 years, being kept alive by a feeding tube. The doctors have even said years ago that there was no chance for recovery. Why are people holding onto a false hope? It's like us still believing that Creed is going to get back together soon. Her brain damage is so severe that even if something did happen, she would have no sence of where she was, or even who she was. She sure as hell wouldn't even be able to talk or move.

A bunch of protesters are not letting the family do what they need to do. They're all a punch of fools who seem to have nothing better to do than stand on a sidewalk and protest something they know nothing about. Terri has been off of her feeding tube for 12 days now, and will die in the next few days if they're not reinserted.

It seems to me, that her husband Michael Schiavo, is the only one with his head on his shoulders. He is doing what is in her best interest instead of his own. It reminds me of what my grandmother said when she was in the hospital dying. She said to "Just stick a needle in me like you would a sick dog." Do what is in the best interest of the patient. Don't force her to keep living. Michael has also requested an autopsy to be done (as agreed upon by both sides) after she dies to prove that she would never recover, and then have her body cremated. Which, IMO, would be best so other people couldn't f*** with her body and try to figure stuff out about what maybe could have been done or whatever. If she were burried, as her parents want, I think it could create all these possibilities for future problems.

Her heart stopped beating for a period in 1990 because of a chemical imbalance that caused this brain damage. If she were magically brought back to life, the imbalance would still be there, and this could happen again. Her brain is so fried that because of the extent of the damage, the only thing that would show she was alive would be her heart beat.

My college president's wife was taken off life support and had her feeding tubes removed after suffering a series of strokes two weeks ago, and not a damn person protested that.

My message to her family: There is no point to keeping someone artificially alive. So do the right thing, and pull the plug, and let her rest. Don't let your own wants take presidence over anothers' feelings and desires. Nobody wants to lose their child, but some people have to. Stop thinking of nobody but yourself.

Well, there's my rant. What do you all think?


H-D :pimp:

[JulieCitySlicker]

I don't really know much about,not enough to give an opinion anyways.

[Steve]

My opinion on the issue:

She probably has no chance to recover and it's a lost cause to keep her alive in that state. However, there's more to the story.

She had no living will so the issue of keeping or removing the feeding tube lies with the person most responsible for her - her husband. The problem with this mess is that her husband moved on long ago and started another family with another woman. He just never got a divorce from Terri. Why hasn't he gotten a divorce? There has to be a reason... maybe a life insurance policy? Some other kind of fortune? I have no idea, but it just doesn't make sense. He has and wants nothing to do with Terri anymore, yet he keeps fighting the parents over their daughter.

What I think should happen is that custody of Terri should be handed over to the parents and let the parents do what they want with her. If they want to keep her feeding tube connected, let 'em. So what? As long as they cover the costs of care, what's the harm of that? Terri's "husband" should let go - like I said before, he's got nothing to do with her anymore. So why is he so intent on being involved now?

[aussiecreeder]

she's not really on life support although she does have a feeding tube inserted to keep her alive. its not as if her organs are no longer working and being kept artifically alive. i don't think because its not clear she has concious thought she should not be kept alive. i think its sad that once people (particulary the elderly) no longer are "useful members of society" they don't need to be kept alive. as steve said the husband's actions are making this even harder than it is. surely if there is any doubt whatsoever then we should be on the side of life.

[NeedforCreed]

she's not really on life support although she does have a feeding tube inserted to keep her alive. its not as if her organs are no longer working and being kept artifically alive. i don't think because its not clear she has concious thought she should not be kept alive. i think its sad that once people (particulary the elderly) no longer are "useful members of society" they don't need to be kept alive. as steve said the husband's actions are making this even harder than it is. surely if there is any doubt whatsoever then we should be on the side of life.

Very true. What's the harm before all evidence is heard and all avenues are exhausted and as Steve stated her husband is pretty much so on paper only. Her parents should have more of a say in this.

[aussiecreeder]

I do find slightly ironic that Bush (George and Jeb) are so passionate about "saving life" yet didn't George preside over the highest rate of capital punishment in Texas during modern times?

[Higher_Desire]

My opinion on the issue:

She probably has no chance to recover and it's a lost cause to keep her alive in that state. However, there's more to the story.

She had no living will so the issue of keeping or removing the feeding tube lies with the person most responsible for her - her husband. The problem with this mess is that her husband moved on long ago and started another family with another woman. He just never got a divorce from Terri. Why hasn't he gotten a divorce? There has to be a reason... maybe a life insurance policy? Some other kind of fortune? I have no idea, but it just doesn't make sense. He has and wants nothing to do with Terri anymore, yet he keeps fighting the parents over their daughter.

What I think should happen is that custody of Terri should be handed over to the parents and let the parents do what they want with her. If they want to keep her feeding tube connected, let 'em. So what? As long as they cover the costs of care, what's the harm of that? Terri's "husband" should let go - like I said before, he's got nothing to do with her anymore. So why is he so intent on being involved now?
Really? Well, if he did get married to another woman without getting a divorce from his first wife, then the second marriage is not legal. It would be a common-law marriage, which would mean he's still the legal party over his wife. I don't know why he never divorced her. Maybe it was because she was already in this state, and knew what would happen if he did. (The same thing that's happening now.) He's been fighting for years to have her feeding tubes removed. After she dies he would be able to claim his current wife as a legal "wife." Some religions teach that divorce is an evil thing, not of Christ, and one must never divorce their spouse. Perhaps that's why he's never divorced her. I don't remember what religion he is, but I believe her parents are Roman Catholic, which teach some things like that.

I guess really there's no point on speculating why he never did it. We'll never fully know. I just think it's pathetic that so many people are getting involved and protesting the whole thing, especially when about 99% never even heard of her until this thing started. People are trying to make decisions that they have no say it. It's not their place to judge if it's murder.


H-D :pimp:

[creedsister]

I don't really know much about,not enough to give an opinion anyways.
Me either but i will....I Say Let Her Go... doctors like to use for a lab Rat

[Steve]

Some religions teach that divorce is an evil thing, not of Christ, and one must never divorce their spouse. Perhaps that's why he's never divorced her.

That's a possible reason but I don't buy it. It's also a sin to have sex outside of marriage so if he was holding on for religious reasons, he commited a comparable sin while doing so.

[goddess_bb]

I think you all need to give the husband a break here...his reasons for not divorcing Terri are his own, who are we to judge. It has been established that he has been in another relationship for 10 of the 15 Terri has been in this state. I say who can blame him? He has a right to a life! He didin't do this to his wife and he has stood by her in his way... he is still there. Has anyone thought of the medical expences that have accumilated over 15 years, who is responsible for those...her husband...
I think her family is being incrediably selfish, they are hanging on when they should just let her go and be in peace. Maybe at least in heaven she could walk and talk..function.

[Steve]

goddess_bb, when Terri first developed this condition, the husband sued a drug company (claiming the drugs in combination with her eating disorder caused improper chemical levels in her body). He won the lawsuit and from that X dollars have been used to pay for the care. The lawsuit strictly specified the amount to be used for her care - he never touched that portion of the lawsuit. [this is what I've gathered from watching tv coverage of this from various networks]

I agree that he has a right to move on with his life, but if he doesn't want to be a part of her's anymore, then he should get a divorce, especially 10 years later...

[Mulletman]

I don't know, I think that people are making to big of a deal of this. If I were in that situtation, let me go. Or let the dogs go at me. If her husband said she has to go, then his desision should stand. Other relatives should have have a say in it. With that being said, once the husband (or wife) remarries, thier rights on this subject should be revoked.

[hayley]

I haven't really been following her story, and it's only been featured on New Zealand news a couple of times. In my opinion, her condition saddens me, how can you want to fight for your life when there is nothing to it, as horrible as that says it's true. She has nothing, I think there is no point in living when you are in the state that she is.

I say just let her rest in peace, but I guess if her family wants to keep her alive everybody has to respect that, but to me it's cruel.

[aussiecreeder]

I haven't really been following her story, and it's only been featured on New Zealand news a couple of times. In my opinion, her condition saddens me, how can you want to fight for your life when there is nothing to it, as horrible as that says it's true. She has nothing, I think there is no point in living when you are in the state that she is.

I say just let her rest in peace, but I guess if her family wants to keep her alive everybody has to respect that, but to me it's cruel.

You have a point but isn't the result a slippery slope? What kind of life does the 90 year old man have who can't feed or bathe himself but is otherwise functioning fairly normally? What is the limit? Are we no longer human when we can't do things for ourselves? If so when does a baby become human? Human babies are COMPLETELY defenceless for at least the first year of their lives if not longer.

As I said I think Bush is a massive hyprocrite because he was governor when his state killed so many albeit convicted men and he led his country into an immoral war. I don't know it saddens me to think of any friends or relatives in the state she is in.......

[Steve]

Are we no longer human when we can't do things for ourselves? If so when does a baby become human? Human babies are COMPLETELY defenceless for at least the first year of their lives if not longer.

I don't think you can compare the two because although a baby is defenseless in their beginning, they are also developing. Someone in a persistant vegetative state is not developing...

[Steve]

Wow I just read some more media coverage of this on news websites... apparently 10 minutes before Terri passed away, her husband came in the room and ordered the parents and Terri's sister to leave - and they had to by law. Then Terri died.

And now he wants to cremate her body and place the ashes on his familiy's plot in Pennsylvania and her parents want to bury her in Florida. This is never going to end...

[hockeymom97]

That's a possible reason but I don't buy it. It's also a sin to have sex outside of marriage so if he was holding on for religious reasons, he commited a comparable sin while doing so.


From what I have heard is that he has not divorced her due to medical insurance. If he were to divorce her, she would not have any medical insurance to pay for the little bit they have left on the lifetime policy. The lawsuit funds have been all used up on the medical expenses. 15 years of being in this state I am sure he probably owes more that what he won.

[Mulletman]

A baby might be defenseless, but it it healthy. A baby with the same thing as Terri wouldnt last to its 1st birthday.

As for the governer remark, the only ones that were executed by the state, where murders. Those who willingly went out of thier way to murder. Not muggers, car thieves, or drug dealers. These were gruesome murderers.

[Steve]

From what I have heard is that he has not divorced her due to medical insurance. If he were to divorce her, she would not have any medical insurance to pay for the little bit they have left on the lifetime policy. The lawsuit funds have been all used up on the medical expenses. 15 years of being in this state I am sure he probably owes more that what he won.

Wow I did not hear that one. That does shine a bit of positive light on him though.

[aussiecreeder]

I don't think you can compare the two because although a baby is defenseless in their beginning, they are also developing. Someone in a persistant vegetative state is not developing...

So are we concluding that someone in a persistent vegetative state is no longer human?

[Mulletman]

No, but the subject at hand wasn't whether either of the two are or are not human. As Steve said, a baby is still growing. That is the primary difference. Terri was able to suvive for 15 years in her state because her body had already matured. A baby in Terri's condition wouldnt last more than a week.

[Higher_Desire]

So are we concluding that someone in a persistent vegetative state is no longer human?
I don't think anyone ever said that a defensiveless person of any age (whether vegatiative or not) is not human. I think you're reading a bit far into that. I believe what is being said is that when someone is in a vegatative state, no longer able fend for themselves, with little to no brain activity, being kept alive only by a feeding tube, has no sence of what is going on or who there are, with no chance of recovery, etc. there really isn't a point to keeping them alive, or to say, keeping them alive is of no benefit to them. Therefore an executive decision must be made by someone close to the person on what should be done. Someone who is capible of making a decision of such a high magnitude. Most usually, a spouse, parent, or other close family member.


H-D :pimp:

[hayley]

You have a point but isn't the result a slippery slope? What kind of life does the 90 year old man have who can't feed or bathe himself but is otherwise functioning fairly normally? What is the limit? Are we no longer human when we can't do things for ourselves? If so when does a baby become human? Human babies are COMPLETELY defenceless for at least the first year of their lives if not longer.
You have a good point, although babies are different, they are in the safe care of their parents. (Most babies are anyway). Like Mulletman said, they are still developing. To be honest with you, I think being old and crippled, having a mental disease, or anything that does not give you the capibility to live a normal life, is human cruelty. (Obviously with old people it's abit different if they are willing to carry on living, but any other case where nothing can be changed, I consider as cruelty). I have a very strong opinion on that. Do you remember when I told you that I was scared of getting old, it's because I'm horrified of being 80 years old, lying in bed hardly being able to move my body. What kind of life is that? I hate the thought of what will happen. To be perfectly honest, I would rather die before I hit that stage.

Anyhow back to the topic, to me like I said before keeping Terri alive in that condition was absolutley cruel, they said that she wanted to live, but I can just not see how that can be possible. Not being able to do anything it just makes me sick. It's not fair to ANYONE with similar conditions to live in that way, they must want to die. As for old people, well I mean most of them want to stay alive but I just don't know how they can want to, I guess that's a whole different topic though.

[aussiecreeder]

You have a good point, although babies are different, they are in the safe care of their parents. (Most babies are anyway). Like Mulletman said, they are still developing. To be honest with you, I think being old and crippled, having a mental disease, or anything that does not give you the capibility to live a normal life, is human cruelty. (Obviously with old people it's abit different if they are willing to carry on living, but any other case where nothing can be changed, I consider as cruelty). I have a very strong opinion on that. Do you remember when I told you that I was scared of getting old, it's because I'm horrified of being 80 years old, lying in bed hardly being able to move my body. What kind of life is that? I hate the thought of what will happen. To be perfectly honest, I would rather die before I hit that stage.
so those who have down-syndrome for instance face cruelty in life? i disagree with that, many people with disablities live very happy lives and are very optimistic people even if they need help with many basic things. i don't like the thought of getting dementia for instance but i think a society should be helping the less fortunate, not getting rid of them. we can agree to disagree..... :)

Anyhow back to the topic, to me like I said before keeping Terri alive in that condition was absolutley cruel, they said that she wanted to live, but I can just not see how that can be possible. Not being able to do anything it just makes me sick. It's not fair to ANYONE with similar conditions to live in that way, they must want to die. As for old people, well I mean most of them want to stay alive but I just don't know how they can want to, I guess that's a whole different topic though.
how can you assume to know what ANYONE would want? if there is any doubt shouldn't we err on the side of caution? the way she died (starvation) to me is cruel. anyway i don't want a start an argument over this but a lively debate i can handle! :)

[hayley]

so those who have down-syndrome for instance face cruelty in life? i disagree with that, many people with disablities live very happy lives and are very optimistic people even if they need help with many basic things. i don't like the thought of getting dementia for instance but i think a society should be helping the less fortunate, not getting rid of them. we can agree to disagree..... :)
I can't put it into the right words without making it sound horrible. I didn't actually mean people with down syndrome, I know that most of them live happy lives, I have a cousin who is effected by downsyndrome and he lives a good life. I meant people who have diseases that leave them capable of nothing at all. Like in Terri's case, you know the kind of diseases that I mean, I just don't know the names of them, lol. I think today's society with down syndrome is great, here we are very supportive and there are alot of events that they can go to, etc, it's really good here. And it would be great if the society could help the ones with incurable diseases, but there is nothing we can do! Nothing. That's why it's cruel to leave people like that alive, there is nothing anyone can do, I say it's better to put them to rest in peace.

how can you assume to know what ANYONE would want? if there is any doubt shouldn't we err on the side of caution? the way she died (starvation) to me is cruel. anyway i don't want a start an argument over this but a lively debate i can handle! :)
I just can't understand why anyone would want to be kept alive. I honestly just don't understand, why would you live for nothing? Don't get me wrong I feel absolutley awful for everyone in the world that has to live with some kind of disease, but why would there be a point in life? It just makes me sad!

[aussiecreeder]

I can't put it into the right words without making it sound horrible. I didn't actually mean people with down syndrome, I know that most of them live happy lives, I have a cousin who is effected by downsyndrome and he lives a good life. I meant people who have diseases that leave them capable of nothing at all. Like in Terri's case, you know the kind of diseases that I mean, I just don't know the names of them, lol. I think today's society with down syndrome is great, here we are very supportive and there are alot of events that they can go to, etc, it's really good here. And it would be great if the society could help the ones with incurable diseases, but there is nothing we can do! Nothing. That's why it's cruel to leave people like that alive, there is nothing anyone can do, I say it's better to put them to rest in peace.
I see what you're saying with people like Terri! I think that unless people tell their family and friends what they want in this type of scenario then they should be kept alive. If there is any doubt as to their wishes then surely they need to be kept alive. Oh I didn't know about your cousin but most down syndrome sufferers are really happy people but I agree its not the same when I think about it ( not comparable to Schiavo).


I just can't understand why anyone would want to be kept alive. I honestly just don't understand, why would you live for nothing? Don't get me wrong I feel absolutley awful for everyone in the world that has to live with some kind of disease, but why would there be a point in life? It just makes me sad!
But you still can't claim to know what others would want. If a diehard right to lifer was in that scenario I'm not sure if that would change their minds. That is why people need to discuss this stuff with their family just in case as morbid as it sounds. I just hope I never have to much such a decision......

[RMadd]

well, i haven't the time/patience to read all the posts above mine, but my opinion, in brief, is that 1) any person should have the right to die, if they so desire, and 2) it wasn't up to her parents, but, rather, her husband, so all the appeals to the SC, etc were quite useless and really just a pain in the ass to hear about
in my mind, she's been in that condition for 15 years, she simply wasn't going to get better w/ a feeding tube stuffed in her. is it cruel & unusual to take it out & let her die sans nourishment? perhaps. but, not to sound too cold or cruel, that's life. seems pretty cruel & unusual to keep someone alive in that condition with no real hope for chance of success. and all the videos of her family waving things around her, showing her "following" the movement? IMO, quite demeaning. those sort of antics are typically reserved for babies and animals.