Terri Schiavo

[Rapunzel]

Well, I had a brother-in-law that functioned very much as Terry functions (assuming she's not already dead of dehydration as I type this). She was given very, very little physical therapy well over a decade ago (it halted after her husband won the multi-million dollar settlement and began insisting she should die). She would require highly intensive therapy in order to function beyond the level of a newborn. And, that is exactly the level she functions at - a newborn's. She is not brain-dead, she has severe brain damage due to oxygen being withheld from her brain (the exact same thing occurred in my bil and his brain scans looked VERY similar from his autopsy upon his death). I have heard that newborns only smile "reflexively" as well and, having had four now I know that that statement is absolute rubbish.

Terry tracks with her eyes, she responds to stimuli, her brain functions - simply not at the level you or I experience. Sure, we can claim she doesn't feel pain or hunger as she dies slowly - but there was a time until recently when many claimed a newborn could not feel any pain and they were denied anesthetics during surgeries. We now know that even fish can and do feel pain. Terry, who is not brain-dead, who can respond to stimuli and seems aware of her surroundings can respond to pain just as you and I can - just as a newborn can.

I consider this state-endorsed death. Terry's husband is already living with another woman. He will not divorce Terry because he cannot receive the balance of her settlement from the reportedly multi-million dollar malpractice suit upon her death in that case. He has denied her the physical therapy that the settlement was meant to pay for for well over a decade. If Terry were a death-row inmate the governor could halt her execution. But, since she is permanently disabled her death is sealed.

I faced the real possibility of having a child with severe brain damage when my oldest went in for his first neurosurgery as an infant. His second surgery as a toddler could've also resulted in life-long brain damage. Both times I had to decide if I was willing to take care of a child in essentially an infantile state for the rest of his life. The second surgery in particular could've resulted poorly with him specifically not being able to swallow due to the particular portion of the brain affected. Would I consider my son's life not worth living because he was infantile the remainder of his life? I knew then as I know now that an infantile state is still a state of life - of worthy life (although, Peter Singer would disagree as he believes an infant is not worthy to live if he/she is a "burden"). And, I would not have sought to end his life if all that was required was assistance in feeding him as a permanently brain damaged person - a disabled person. My children are all burdens upon me - all children are burdens upon their parents. The reasoning that one should never be a "burden" would negate the existence of every person on this earth (since we've all experienced infancy and childhood).

The following statement was issued by a national disability advocacy group The Arc of the United States:

"For people with disabilities and their families, the Schiavo case represents a slippery slope and raises the possibility that the right to life of people with significant intellectual and or physical disabilities might one day be questioned...

"... Today, there are thousands of people with various physical and cognitive disabilities who use feeding tubes as their normal means of getting food and water. For these people, a feeding tube is not life support or heroic intervention. It is a simple way of getting hydration and nourishment. When they are hospitalized for any reason – however minor – they risk having their normal means of eating and drinking be classified as as “extraordinary treatment” or “life support.”

"...The disability community has grappled with these issues in the past and has come to the conclusion that in such cases, it is best to assume that life is preferable over death. Is that not what the Schiavo case is all about? Laws governing surrogate decision-making vary among states and are often the result of well-funded advocacy from a narrow group of professionals. In most cases, disability organizations were not included in changes of statutes on the state level, and the drafters of those statues did not take into account the views of those with disabilities..."

"...Our society must stop using the term “persistent vegetative state.” Too many people with significant disabilities have been called “vegetables,” and this must stop. It is beyond demeaning; it is dehumanizing. In fact, some of the people who use the term most freely are doctors, and what comes next is a discussion of the death or warehousing of the individual labeled that way."

"...When a person has serious disabilities, the debate should not be about whether or not they are going to “get better” some day. For millions of Americans, disability is a fact of life,every day of our lives. People with disabilities have wonderful lives. And some have lousy lives. In that way, they are just like other Americans. Just because a person has a significant disability does not mean that they do not love their life. It does not mean that they should be assumed to be better off dead."

"...It is time for a call to conscience to both the Right and the Left. Guardianship should not be a death ship. People like Terri Schiavo are persons under the law, and they deserve constitutional protection."

"...The disability community is grateful that so many in Congress supported Terri Schiavo’s right to live, even though we are concerned about the precedent they set. We would like to see them follow up with the same level of concern for making sure we can provide care and support for the millions of Americans with disabilities by supporting Medicaid Community Attendant Services and Supports Act, which would allow people receiving Medicaid funding to have a life, not just stay to alive.– We call on them to ensure continued appropriate funding of Medicaid and other programs that people need..."

"...Terri Schiavo’s case is every family’s nightmare. Disability doesn’t have to be a nightmare. Even if our nation disagrees on how we define compassion, we must certainly agree that all lives are equal under the law."

My husband's family made the correct choice in taking care of a child brain damaged in infancy when told by physicians he would be a vegetable for the remainder of his life and that life was not worth living. That child, with intense physical therapy lasting over the course of 15 years, was able to progress to the estimated level of a toddler/preschooler. Perhaps that was exceptional and Terry would never progress with the same intense treatment over the same period of time to a level beyond, say, a one or two year old. I fail to see how that would make her life more worthy of execution.

Jennifer

[Rapunzel]

I don't know how many of you have read Orson Scott Card's outstanding fiction (such as the Ender's Game series), but I recently read an opinion piece he penned on this subject and he articulated my feelings on the subject matter much more eloquently than I could ever attempt - but, hey, it's his job to write.

Whose Life is Worth Living?

by Orson Scott Card

It wasn’t that many years ago when I happened to be in Raleigh at a gathering of literary folk who were quite full of their own superiority. They started talking about people who (gasp!) let years go by without reading a single book.

“Why do they even bother being alive?” asked one of them. Almost everyone laughed.

They went on and on about the worthlessness of the lives of non-intellectuals. Shopping in malls. Eating at McDonald’s. Driving their gas-guzzling cars.

I did ask where they shopped, and which of them had arrived at the party by balloon. I have not been invited to such gatherings since.

It’s so easy to decide that someone else’s life is not worth living. Lacking something that we regard as essential, we cannot fathom how they get through a day.

The nattering of intellectuals about the valuelessness of the “unexamined life” might be taken as hyperbole, if it weren’t for the fact that it is precisely our intellectual elite that has decided to set itself up as champions of the right to murder people “for their own good.”

*

We saw how intellectuals treat the issue in this year’s Oscar-winning deathwish movie, Million Dollar Baby. By now everyone knows that at the end, Hilary Swank lies in a bed, paralyzed from the neck down. Because of bedsores, one leg is amputated.

So, in despair, she begs Clint Eastwood to kill her.

And when he won’t, she tries to kill herself by biting off her own tongue.

At last he succumbs, becomes a murderer for her sake, and walks away as the audience weeps at the nobility of his sacrifice.

Sacrifice?

Hardly. Just think — now he won’t have to visit her every day in the hospital. No more time spent trying to talk her into staying alive.

Let’s see ...

What was her character suffering that Christopher Reeve didn’t suffer?

How dare I make such a comparison! Christopher Reeve didn’t ask people to kill him. He was a different person and made a different choice!

No, he wasn’t merely a different person.

The difference is that he was a person, and she wasn't.

Hillary Swank’s character was made up. She did what the author decided she should do. So after we see her grimly determined to overcome all obstacles, unwilling to be discouraged, adapting to whatever circumstances try to thwart her, suddenly the author decides that this time she’ll give up and start demanding that the people who love her most surrender their sense of decency and goodness in order to indulge her despair.

Do you think Christopher Reeve didn’t feel despair? He said so, in various interviews; there were even times he wished he were dead; but the love and encouragement of his family and friends gave him new purpose.

*

Plus, there’s that little thing called “adaptation.”

People get used to things.

In one experiment, people were fitted with lenses that turned everything upside down while shutting out any view of the right-side-up world.

In a surprisingly short time, their brains did a flip-flop and turned the upside-down-image right side up again.

In concentration camps, some people do indeed despair. It’s a well-known phenomenon: They turn their faces to the wall and take no interest in the world around them until they die — often very quickly.

Unloved, untouched babies also wither, losing brain function, becoming engulfed by lethargy, and sometimes simply dying.

But most people, given anything to hold on to, adapt and try. They find new purpose. They find work-arounds.

The quadriplegics who learn to paint with a brush held between their teeth.

Helen Keller.

Stephen Hawking.

I suppose, though, that we should have simply killed them as soon as the incurability of their problems became obvious. After all, what “quality of life” could they possibly have?

*

People make their own quality of life. There are people who are desperately unhappy in the midst of freedom and plenty, and people who are quite cheerful despite devastating deprivation and loss.

My wife was once at a gathering of church women, when one of them started complaining about how desperately hard it was to choose just the right dining room set for her new home.

She seemed genuinely distressed. And the other ladies commiserated. But my wife knew that one of the women was suffering through the breakup of her marriage, and another was worried because her husband was probably going to be laid off. Every one of them had problems that made choosing a dining room set almost laughably trivial.

But to that one woman, the dining room problem was the worst thing in her life. It’s as if she had a certain amount of misery she was determined to feel, and settled on whatever came to hand to be miserable about.

While other women in that same room turned their problems and suffering outward, and took their mind off their problems by either working to overcome them or, if they were insuperable, simply doing whatever was within their power to make the people around them a little happier.

The result was that they were happier themselves.

So whose quality of life was better?

Whose life was more worth living?

Nobody would suggest euthanizing a person because she’s suffering so terribly about choosing a table and chairs.

No, we’re still slightly careful about whom we can kill and then feel noble about it.

*

For instance, we now live in a country where you can kill your wife, as long as she’s tragically brain-damaged, lying in a hospital bed, unable to speak.

She does open her eyes, though. And she can track objects that move across her field of vision. She isn’t in a coma.

She even has people who want to take care of her. Her parents, her siblings.

And pay no attention to the “experts” who say that these apparent signs of intelligent life aren’t real. We once had an “expert” make the same sort of declaration about our son Charlie, after a mere half hour of observation, completely discounting the experience of Charlie’s parents and other caretakers who knew perfectly well that he really communicated with us.

The expert’s assumption was that anything seen through the eyes of people who loved Charlie was to be discounted completely. Ironically, though, it is precisely the people whose attention is concentrated by love who are best equipped to judge whether communication is happening — since it is happening with them.

The people who love Terri Schiavo apparently do not include her husband, who seems awfully impatient to get rid of her.

And under our bizarre laws, he has the only vote, and her parents and brothers and sisters are completely disregarded.

What is the husband’s case for killing her?

It couldn’t possibly be because he wants to be able to marry the woman he’s living with now. After all, to accomplish that he need only divorce the brain-damaged woman in a hospital bed.

Oh, but wait. If he divorces her, then he won’t get as much of that million-dollar settlement that’s paying for her care right now. Only if she dies will he get any of that.

No, his motive is completely noble and unselfish. He wants to shut off her feeding tube because she “wouldn’t have wanted to live like this.”

Hmmmm. Convenient that she can’t speak, isn’t it?

The incredible thing — to me, at least, and yet I have to believe it, don’t I — is that he was able to find a judge who would give him the right to kill this woman.

Despite the fact that she has loved ones who are desperate to keep her alive and take responsibility for her care. Despite the fact that the husband’s motives are suspect at best. Somehow, judges in Florida keep finding a “right to kill” hidden somewhere in the law.

Well, we have a precedent for that, don’t we. When it comes to legalized killing, our judges are way ahead of our legislatures ...

*

Once you plunge out onto that slippery slope of allowing the killing of another human organism for no better reason than personal convenience, it’s so hard to find a handhold to let you climb back up.

Yet it’s the proponents of legalized killing who whine about the “slippery slope.”

Are there times when it is justified to take a human life?

I believe so — and so do most people. Self-defense, defense of the helpless and innocent, aborting a baby to save the life of the mother; there’s almost always a trade-off, choosing one life over another.

In fact, under traditional law, there is more of a case for killing Terry Schiavo’s husband in order to save her from him than there is for killing the brain-damaged woman in the first place.

*

Whenever somebody wants to kill someone else, he will find excuses to justify the act. Most often, he will claim that his would-be victim is “not really human,” not a person.

It is precisely because of this human tendency that a decent society must go to extra effort, must draw the line firmly at a much earlier point, in order to prevent the killing of innocents. Especially those who are utterly incapable of speaking for themselves.

Inability to plead for your life should not be sufficient grounds for killing you.

If this woman can be murdered, with the active help of the courts that granted permission and blocked legislators from changing the law, then who is safe?

I suppose that my son Charlie Ben, who spoke very few words in his life and could not sit or stand or feed himself for all seventeen of his years — I suppose that under this new system of killing “for their own good,” I, as his parent, could have decided to stop feeding him and let him die.

But no. Isn’t this odd? Just because we were able to use a spoon and a tippy-cup to get food into his body, it would have been criminal negligence and I would have been convicted — rightly — of murder.

Fortunately, such an act never crossed my mind during his lifetime, and, if it had, would have been met with shame and loathing. So he had all seventeen of the years his body gave him. He was often happy, but sometimes sad and frustrated. He was cut off from certain kinds of relationships, yet he managed to bring joy and understanding to many people whose lives he touched.

Most emphatically, it was a life worth living.

And this poor woman — even if the only thing she can “do” is receive the loving service of her family, who is to say that this is not sufficient reason for her life to continue?

Even if her survival is only a testament to the importance of life in our society, is that not a good reason for her to stay alive?

*

We cannot get inside the head of someone else even when they can speak. So to take the life of someone based on speculation about what they “would have wanted” is arrogant at best, monstrous at worst.

So what if she might have said at one time, “I wouldn’t want to live like that”? She was only speculating herself at that time, guessing at how she would feel.

How many times have you ever said, “If that ever happens to me, then I hope you’ll just kill me”?

Even people suffering from such dark depression that they say they want to die — who is to say that at some later time they might have a completely different desire? But once they’re dead, they can’t change their mind.

We can’t prevent death indefinitely — it comes to everyone in the end. Sometimes it comes to those who are tragically young, as a murderer steals them from their beds, or a tsunami sweeps them out of their homes, or some enemy hacks them to death because they’re of the wrong tribe ... terrible things happen.

But when we can preserve a life, how dare we not do our best to do so?

Not just for the sake of that particular life, but for the sake of all the others who will be murdered once we open the floodgates and allow selfish people to kill those helpless ones who inconvenience them.

Once we accept the premise that it’s permissible — or even noble — to kill the helpless, then where do we draw the line?

If a civilization ceases protecting the weak and innocent from the strong and selfish, then what, precisely, is civilization for?

Imagine a woman who had an abortion but also had a couple of children who lived. What would we think of her if she ever said — or thought — “I only wish I’d aborted the others”?

We know exactly what we think of people who murder children — their own or other people’s.

How is Terry Schiavo not eligible for the special protection we give to children? Just because it’s an injury that makes her as helpless as a newborn; just because she doesn’t seem to have the potential of “growing out of it”; how dare we let her be murdered — and call ourselves civilized?

And if the judiciary actively conspires in the murder of such innocents, who will protect them then?

*

There are people whose lives are not worth living — or at least do not justify to society at large the trouble of keeping them alive. The murderers and torturers and ravishers of children, for instance — to protect innocents from them, a decent society might well choose to save all their future victims by killing the conscienceless perpetrator.

Yet because life is so precious, decent people are loath to use the death penalty, because it’s possible for the prosecutors to be wrong. Better to keep a thousand perpetrators of evil alive than to suffer one to be executed innocently.

But those who have harmed no one, whose only offense is to remain alive while being helpless, we can kill them.

We have forgotten how to be appropriately outraged. We can see people frothing at the mouth both for and against a promiscuous President, we can see people furious that others eat meat or wear fur or drill for oil in frozen wastelands — but starve a lone and helpless woman in the hospital, and ... where is the rage at such a wrong?

We talk about how terrible it is, and then shrug and say, “But what can I do?”

Why do we let the hypothetical trump the real?

We do it with our current abortion law: In order to save hypothetical women who might die from illegal back-alley abortions, we allow the killing of millions of separate human organisms for no better reason than their erstwhile parents’ convenience.

Likewise, because Terry Schiavo might hypothetically prefer death to her current state, we seem poised to allow the very real woman to be starved to death despite the desperate concern of her family who want her to be kept alive.

It is death that trumps life in this twisted, sick, upside down version of America we live in now.

Thus evil wins over and corrupts a whole society, because by our silence or inaction, our selfishness or laziness, we conspire in the slaughter of the innocents.

What is our quality of life, as a civilization, when this is what we tolerate?

Miss Liberty’s promise is false after all. Send us no more “huddled masses yearning to breathe.” There is no such right in our country anymore, and no one left to protect it.

We have nothing to teach the world if we let this murder be carried out before our eyes, with the consent of our judges.

If only Terry Schiavo had been convicted of some crime. Then the governor could stay her execution.

If she starves to death, something dies in all of us; and not a small thing, either, unless we have made it small by our lack of compassion for the helpless.

Let’s act on an old slogan that promotes life: “Love conquers all.”

It is not love of any kind that arrogantly says, “Better to be dead than live like that.”

My answer is, Better to be stupid than to be so “smart” you think you have the right to judge innocent lives as not worth living, just because you wouldn’t wish to live it yourself.

Originally published in the Rhinoceros Times, Greensboro, NC

[Vanquisher]

I can't say how vehemently I disagree. You have some valid points, but I just can't see how they apply.

This woman has been living like this for 15 years. She does not have a living will, and unfortunately we will never know her true wishes.

Dh is taking care of a patient right now who is functioning on about the same level as Terri Shiavo. This man has not had the quality of care she has received. He has such severe contractures that he is contorted in such a way that one of his knees is up high on the other side of his chest, squashing his genitals. His head is bowed down. He has a bed sore so large that you can tap on his sacrum. He is septic and has MRSA. His family, should the event arise, has asked that he be a "full code." You can't even get to his chest to do compressions. The reason his family, it seems, wants him to be kept alive at all cost is that they receive large disability checks as he was hurt in duty. I can't imagine it feels very pleasant to be in his state.

I think starvation isn't a bad way to go. It isn't painful. And I think her husband is showing her a huge amount of love. To refuse to give up his fight and write his wife off shows me he isn't just trying to kill her. He is trying to carry out her wishes. I would never, ever want to live like that, and I would hope that my husband would fight as long as he had to to allow me to die. And, I would hope that he could move on with his life too, and find someone else to share his life with. 15 years! I don't blame him one iota for moving on. Yet, he still remains married to her, in my opinion, so that he has the legal authority to carry out her wishes. I think this is brave and noble. He has rejected offers of money, left and right. Clearly I think this is causing him much more suffering to proceed in earnest against people who stand on his lawn and call him a killer, just because he wants to carry out his wifes wishes. If he truly was so dismissive of her, and didn't care about her, he would have let it go a long time ago, before it became the media spectacle that it is, before he was threatened with his own life, before it came down to the government trying to tell him that after fighting so hard for her, for so long, that he is supposed to quit on his wife, and allow her to live a life most of us would NEVER want to live.

You can hardly compare Christopher Reeve. He had a lot of money, and power at his disposal to affect change and continue to fight for his life which had a cause. His brain, still fully intact, was able to inspire people and call for new legislation that could possibly help millions of people through scientific research. Terri sits in a chair. Reflexive or not, her movements hardly warrant this. If her parents really are religious as they say they are, won't she be going to a better place? A place where she can be free in spirit and not trapped in the cage of her body?

I'm so glad that it finally looks like she will get some peace.

First of all, I agree with all those who have said that the media and government have NO place in all of this. Its not anyone's business but that of the family. I believe 'family' to mean the husband. Someone else said the parents were no longer responsible for her when she got married. I agree and I believe it is the husband's decision.

Also, I have a difficult time with all the talk about him having a questionable character. What do any of us know of their personal life? What the media tells us?? This has all been so over-exposed by the media, and it sounds like his character has been spun to benefit the storyteller on numerous occasions. I agree that after 15 years, its completely reasonable for him to have 'moved on' with his life and found love for a second time. How fortunate for him. I'm not going to go making assumptions about this guy. What gives me the right? I don't know anything about him.

I also strongly disagree that starvation is a painful and horrible way to die. I've worked with many many hospice patients. Near the end, they would voluntarily stop eating. They don't feel hungry like functioning people do. Their body stops wanting food. I believe it to be completely natural and acceptable.

And lastly, I have a very difficult time seeing how this case compares to Hellen Keller or Chris Reeves or Stephen Hawking or any of the others mentioned. It does not make any sense to me. Has Terry graduated from Cambridge in the past 15 years, while in her state? Has she become the leading theoretical physicist in the past 15 years? How about becoming a campaigner for research into spinal chord injuries? Published a book? No? Well thats because we're talking about very different things here. You can't group everyone with mental disabilities or injuries into one group and slap a "not worth it to save" label on them. Its not cut and dry. It is different in every case and Terry's case is NOT like Stephen Hawkings or any one elses.

I agree with Heidi and several of the previous posts. I have heard that all of the settlement money is basically gone because of all of the legal fees....so if the husband was in this for the money, then why would he continue his fight even though all of it is gone....especially since he is now receiving death threats? I had also heard that he was offered a large sum of money to divorce Terri and turn her over to the custody of her parents, but he refused it. Over the last several years, it has never been proven that Michael Shiavo was in this for the money. People keep saying that they don't understand why he doesn't just divorce her....I think it's because he still loves her and does not want her to suffer.

While we are on the topic of money....I saw an interview with Terri's parents a few years ago and I distinctly remember them saying in the interview how slighted they felt by Michael Shiavo because he had at one point promised to give them a portion of the malpractice money (I think it was 25%), but ended up not giving them a dime. A lot of the hatred and anger they feel towards him seems to have stemmed from this....so can they be considered gold-diggers, too??

As far as the treatments, it is my understanding that she went through rigorous treatment during the first 3 years following the heart attack. Her husband and parents went so far as to fly her across the country to undergo a new experimental therapy. The doctors had repeatedly told her husband that there was no hope for improvement but wasn't until after 3 years of no improvement that the husband asked for her feeding tubes to be removed.

As far as that video where Terri is seen tracking the Mickey Mouse balloon....well, it was a 4-hour long video and she was seen tracking the balloon only for a brief moment....even though her father repeatedly tried to get her to track it again. If she had repeatedly tracked the balloon, then I would believe that she could possibly be in some state of mental awareness.

Terri's family has argued that a person on death row has more rights because they can file for an appeal and that Terri has been denied the right to an appeal. Well, her family has filed something like 22 appeals over the last several years on her behalf....so I don't believe she has been denied this right. I just heard that Terri reportedly vocalized that she wanted to live..."Ahhhhhhh" "waaaaaa"..... It is hard for me to believe that after 15 years she can now express herself with words. I think the family either imagined her saying this or they are just making it up so they can file a last ditch appeal. And, what if she was trying to say "I want to die" instead of "I want to live"?

Rapunzel, the argument here isn't about whether or not someone who is a burden on others has a right to live/die. The argument is whether or not Terri would want to continue living...or I guess a better term would be "existing"....like this. At least 22 judges have sided with Terri's husband and I feel confident in their decisions...after all, they have all of the facts...they have seen all of the videos & medical records and heard all of the testimony.

[PrincessFiona]

Not to totally change the subject here...but I have to say that I find this whole topic to be sad...I can hardly stand to watch the news coverage. I find it to be tragic for her husband, her parents...and her...what a sad, sad thing.

I just wish they would quit covering it and move on to something else.

:|

kris

[Rapunzel]

So, since it is more ethical to starve a person to death (and, involves no pain or discomfort either) let's start lobbying our congressmen/women for enforcing the death penalty by starvation. We should also have the definition of torture changed so that withholding food/water is acknowledged as a humane manner in which to treat a person.

Additionally, we should also allow parents of brain damaged children to withhold nourishment from those children should they decide the child would be better off dead (or that the child would choose to die if he/she were competent to make such a decision).

These are the next logical steps in the lines of thinking that I'm reading here.

Jennifer

[Rapunzel]

I just wish they would quit covering it and move on to something else.

It IS a sad, sad issue. But, it's one that does deserve a bright light shone upon it because it involves very serious ethical issues regarding the lives of disabled individuals. It's not a living will issue, it's an issue of when it is acceptable for a person to kill another person.

Jennifer

[Rapunzel]

I can't say how vehemently I disagree. You have some valid points, but I just can't see how they apply.

This woman has been living like this for 15 years. She does not have a living will, and unfortunately we will never know her true wishes.

So, do we thus ere on the side of killing her? We will never know her true wishes. So, there is the probability that her true wish is to go on living and be given the therapy she has needed for all of these many years and that could significantly improve her quality of life.

Dh is taking care of a patient right now who is functioning on about the same level as Terri Shiavo. This man has not had the quality of care she has received.

That is the key line here - this disabled patient has not had the quality of care he has needed. I'm sure he is in a pitiful state then. Did he choose to not receive the care he needed? If he received the care he needed would he have the complications arising from a lack of care?

I think starvation isn't a bad way to go. It isn't painful.

What do you base this upon? Are there studies that show that starvation causes no pain or discomfort? I'm intrigued by this line of reasoning because it flies in the face of victims of starvation (such as during WWII) and in the face of current definitions of "torture".

And I think her husband is showing her a huge amount of love. To refuse to give up his fight and write his wife off shows me he isn't just trying to kill her.

Well, he IS writing her off. Killing someone by neglect (in this case withholding nourishment) is the ultimate "write off". Her life is not worth living - it is written off.

He is trying to carry out her wishes.

Again, we don't know that because as you said previously no one knows what her wishes are. There are two different parties in this matter with vastly different claims as to her wishes. One of those parties has cared for her for these many years and plans to continue to do so while the other party has "moved on" with his life. We don't know her wishes and it can be reasonably argued that neither does her former husband (I say former because he is already emotionally divorced from her and married to another).

I would never, ever want to live like that,

And, we go back to the excellent point that Orson Scott Card makes above:

"It is not love of any kind that arrogantly says, “Better to be dead than live like that.”

My answer is, Better to be stupid than to be so “smart” you think you have the right to judge innocent lives as not worth living, just because you wouldn’t wish to live it yourself. "

and I would hope that my husband would fight as long as he had to to allow me to die. And, I would hope that he could move on with his life too, and find someone else to share his life with. 15 years! I don't blame him one iota for moving on. Yet, he still remains married to her, in my opinion, so that he has the legal authority to carry out her wishes.

That is your speculation. My speculation is vastly different. Sometimes people get so involved in being "right" that they will prove they are "right" at all costs. It's called vindictiveness, it's called pride. It's very real and it happens much more often than it should - and it can and does occur to the point of the killing of another individual. Convincing oneself that such an individual isn't really "alive" despite the facts to the contrary can also contribute to this state.

If I were to die I would most certainly want my husband to move on with his life. I know my husband well enough to know that he loves me enough to care for me for the remainder of my life, consider me his only wife for the remainder of my life (ie not move in with another woman and have children by her while I was living - rather than the overt bigamy presented in this case), and would not consider killing me by a means defined as torture in the civilized world. My husband is very, very different than Terry's husband. My husband loves me.

I think this is brave and noble. He has rejected offers of money, left and right.

He has also refused to allow his wife to continue her therapy for over a decade. Where is the nobility in that exactly? How is it brave to cut and run as he has done on an emotional level and is doing on a physical level at this moment? Perhaps he does view himself as "brave and noble" and has convinced himself of this. Perhaps that ego is what is driving his current actions.

Clearly I think this is causing him much more suffering to proceed in earnest against people who stand on his lawn and call him a killer, just because he wants to carry out his wifes wishes.

I actually DO think that people who point out that he has been fighting to kill his wife are contributing to his reasons for doing this. He is "crusading" and must prove them all wrong - that he isn't a cold-hearted killer. And, what better way to do that than to carry on fighting to the bitter end and find vindication from a judge who chooses to agree with you? It's egotism at it's finest and strongest. And, it's all about HIM. Terry is not the issue here - it's what is going on in her former husband's head.

If he truly was so dismissive of her, and didn't care about her, he would have let it go a long time ago, before it became the media spectacle that it is, before he was threatened with his own life, before it came down to the government trying to tell him that after fighting so hard for her, for so long, that he is supposed to quit on his wife, and allow her to live a life most of us would NEVER want to live.

Again, if he cared about her he would put what was best for her at the forefront rather than cater to his own need to be "right".

Isn't it interesting that you regard allowing a person to live as "quitting" on that person? And, again we are confronting the illogical reasoning that because YOU would not want to live her life that SHE would not want to live her life. It's not about what you want or what her husband wants. We can't know what she wants therefore we must ere on the side of not killing her.

You can hardly compare Christopher Reeve. He had a lot of money, and power at his disposal to affect change and continue to fight for his life which had a cause. His brain, still fully intact, was able to inspire people and call for new legislation that could possibly help millions of people through scientific research. Terri sits in a chair. Reflexive or not, her movements hardly warrant this.

Perhaps you didn't mean it this way, but it sounds as if you think that Terry's life would be worth living if she had money and power and was able to inspire and call for new legislation. Because she is much more limited than Christopher Reeve her life is less worth living? By that standard there are millions of people in our nation alone whose lives are not worth living.

If her parents really are religious as they say they are, won't she be going to a better place? A place where she can be free in spirit and not trapped in the cage of her body?

I have no doubt of this. But, that's not the problem. The problem is that we do not know her wishes - nobody seems to know them as those close to her have various opinions as to what her wishes *might* be. The woman in Texas who drowned all of her children also claimed that they would be going to a better place - and she proceeded to use that reasoning to kill them all. It's not a good reason to kill someone is the bottom line.

[Rapunzel]

First of all, I agree with all those who have said that the media and government have NO place in all of this. Its not anyone's business but that of the family. I believe 'family' to mean the husband. Someone else said the parents were no longer responsible for her when she got married. I agree and I believe it is the husband's decision.

You see, the problem with issues of killing an individual being kept "among the family" is that it leads to a slippery slope. Where do we draw the line between murder and "mercy killing"? If a husband attempts to kill his wife and does not succeed in that but, rather, renders her permanently and severly disabled what is to prevent him from finishing the job by withholding needed nourishment or other medical means in such a case? I'm not saying this is what happened in this particular case. But, I am saying that it is problems such as these that lend such logic faulty. When we give one single individual sole power over the life and death of another individual without any accountability for that choice we are proceeding towards a barbaric version of life.

Also, I have a difficult time with all the talk about him having a questionable character. What do any of us know of their personal life? What the media tells us?? This has all been so over-exposed by the media, and it sounds like his character has been spun to benefit the storyteller on numerous occasions. I agree that after 15 years, its completely reasonable for him to have 'moved on' with his life and found love for a second time. How fortunate for him. I'm not going to go making assumptions about this guy. What gives me the right? I don't know anything about him.

Actually, the fact that he has "moved on" is entirely relevent to the case. This case warrants public attention because of its very serious ethics. It does not exist in a vacuum and neither do those who are involved. This man who desires that his disabled wife's life be ended is the subject of intense scrutiny because of the situation. That he doesn't fathom the ethical implications of his choices bodes ill of his conscience for many.

I also strongly disagree that starvation is a painful and horrible way to die. I've worked with many many hospice patients. Near the end, they would voluntarily stop eating. They don't feel hungry like functioning people do. Their body stops wanting food. I believe it to be completely natural and acceptable.

Well, you are comparing apples and oranges here.

On one hand you have people who are capable of choosing to eat or refusing nourishment. Terry can do neither - she is in an infantile state and must "be done unto." You are dealing with people whose perception of starvation is filtered through a strong desire to die. We know of no such strong desire in Terry.

Additionally, I must reiterate - where does this idea that starvation and dehydration are not horrible ways to die stem from other than one's own emotional investment in this particular issue?

And lastly, I have a very difficult time seeing how this case compares to Hellen Keller or Chris Reeves or Stephen Hawking or any of the others mentioned. It does not make any sense to me.

Well, here's the portion of Card's article referring to this. He is referring to the argument people are making that Terri's life is "not worth living" because of her brain damage - her disability:

People get used to things.

In one experiment, people were fitted with lenses that turned everything upside down while shutting out any view of the right-side-up world.

In a surprisingly short time, their brains did a flip-flop and turned the upside-down-image right side up again.

In concentration camps, some people do indeed despair. It’s a well-known phenomenon: They turn their faces to the wall and take no interest in the world around them until they die — often very quickly.

Unloved, untouched babies also wither, losing brain function, becoming engulfed by lethargy, and sometimes simply dying.

But most people, given anything to hold on to, adapt and try. They find new purpose. They find work-arounds.

The quadriplegics who learn to paint with a brush held between their teeth.

Helen Keller.

Stephen Hawking.

I suppose, though, that we should have simply killed them as soon as the incurability of their problems became obvious. After all, what “quality of life” could they possibly have?

Card is specifically referencing the fact that many (including those in this thread) are arguing that her life is not worth living. He is arguing that logically, if we accept that argument we are also accepting that these individuals lives were not worth living, when, arguably, they were. We can extend this to those who have become disabled and who have not become "famous". Are those who haven't gone on after a disability to reach new heights living lives not worth living? Is fame and/or accomplishment the measure of the worth of a life? Are our limitations the measure of the worth of our lives?

This is the ethical issue that Card brings up.

Has Terry graduated from Cambridge in the past 15 years, while in her state? Has she become the leading theoretical physicist in the past 15 years? How about becoming a campaigner for research into spinal chord injuries? Published a book? No? Well thats because we're talking about very different things here. You can't group everyone with mental disabilities or injuries into one group and slap a "not worth it to save" label on them. Its not cut and dry. It is different in every case and Terry's case is NOT like Stephen Hawkings or any one elses.

That is true. Terry has not been allowed access to care that would allow her to reach her full potential with her disability. She has accomplished relatively little in these many years as a result of not receiving the therapy that my bil received over his 15 years after his own brain damage occured. My brother-in-law was regarded as a vegetable worthy of lying in a bed in an institution for the remainder of his life by his physicians. Had my parents listened to these physicians and followed their advice it would've been a self-fulfilling prophecy. You give up and of course you will not advance in any manner. Terry's husband gave up on her long ago and any advancement Terry could have gained was denied by his giving up.

[Rapunzel]

I agree with Heidi and several of the previous posts. I have heard that all of the settlement money is basically gone because of all of the legal fees....so if the husband was in this for the money, then why would he continue his fight even though all of it is gone....especially since he is now receiving death threats? I had also heard that he was offered a large sum of money to divorce Terri and turn her over to the custody of her parents, but he refused it. Over the last several years, it has never been proven that Michael Shiavo was in this for the money. People keep saying that they don't understand why he doesn't just divorce her....I think it's because he still loves her and does not want her to suffer.

Well, I explained my own opinion in a previous post. Basically, I don't think his actions bespeak of a love for Terry as much as they do of his own pride and determination to be right. Additionally, there is no love between Michael Shiavo and Terry's parents and siblings. A vindictive person could definitely inflict a great deal of damage against those who have "wronged" him in some manner by doggedly pursuing killing their loved one.

While we are on the topic of money....I saw an interview with Terri's parents a few years ago and I distinctly remember them saying in the interview how slighted they felt by Michael Shiavo because he had at one point promised to give them a portion of the malpractice money (I think it was 25%), but ended up not giving them a dime. A lot of the hatred and anger they feel towards him seems to have stemmed from this....so can they be considered gold-diggers, too??

Actually, I think it is fairly safe to say that any "hatred and anger" they feel towards him has more to do with the fact that he wants their daughter/sister dead.

As far as the treatments, it is my understanding that she went through rigorous treatment during the first 3 years following the heart attack. Her husband and parents went so far as to fly her across the country to undergo a new experimental therapy. The doctors had repeatedly told her husband that there was no hope for improvement but wasn't until after 3 years of no improvement that the husband asked for her feeding tubes to be removed.

Three years is hardly enough time to see marked improvement with her level of disablement. Her husband, for whatever reason, arbitrarily chose to give up on her after three years of treatment. If my in-laws had done so after only three years there would have been little, if any, improvement in my bil's condition as well. We're talking serious long-term therapy here that her husband didn't seem to either understand or didn't care to have the patience to accept. So, he chose to ignore her need for therapy for these long years while he tried to make the entire issue go away by having her life ended. Yeah, he sounds like a really selfless guy.

As far as that video where Terri is seen tracking the Mickey Mouse balloon....well, it was a 4-hour long video and she was seen tracking the balloon only for a brief moment....even though her father repeatedly tried to get her to track it again. If she had repeatedly tracked the balloon, then I would believe that she could possibly be in some state of mental awareness.

Why such an arbitrary mark as that? The fact that she tracked the balloon shows that she was, well, tracking the balloon. This reminds me of the pediatrician who didn't want to release my newborn from the hospital after her birth because she hadn't made enough poopy diapers in the ped's opinion. Totally arbitrary and less about the patient and more about the emotional state of the person rendering such a judgement.

Terri's family has argued that a person on death row has more rights because they can file for an appeal and that Terri has been denied the right to an appeal. Well, her family has filed something like 22 appeals over the last several years on her behalf....so I don't believe she has been denied this right.

Actually, what I have heard in interviews from her family is the argument that she has less rights than a person on death row because a person on death row can have the governor intervene. A person on death row is there because of a crime committed - a horrible crime. A person on death row is there because he/she was convicted and sentenced by a jury. In light of this, Terri has been given less rights regarding the right to live (and be allowed to advance as far as possible with therapy) than a criminal in our prison system.

I just heard that Terri reportedly vocalized that she wanted to live..."Ahhhhhhh" "waaaaaa"..... It is hard for me to believe that after 15 years she can now express herself with words. I think the family either imagined her saying this or they are just making it up so they can file a last ditch appeal. And, what if she was trying to say "I want to die" instead of "I want to live"?

I don't think anyone has argued she can express herself with words. The argument is that she can vocalize. That is not indicative of a person who is unable to advance with proper, consistant aid.

Rapunzel, the argument here isn't about whether or not someone who is a burden on others has a right to live/die. The argument is whether or not Terri would want to continue living...or I guess a better term would be "existing"....like this.

I addressed the "burden" issue because someone else specifically brought it up. I was simply pointing out the fallacy of the argument made concerning that issue.

The argument is not whether or not Terri would want to continue living. No one can know for sure what the answer to that is and no one can presume to know the answer. It is arrogant and presumptuous for anyone to determine her life as not worthy because they would not desire to live her life or be in her condition. We don't know what her choice would be. But, there are so many that are willing to follow their own emotional abhorrance of her disability and judge that she would obviously not desire to live simply because they imagine they would not desire to live.

At least 22 judges have sided with Terri's husband and I feel confident in their decisions...after all, they have all of the facts...they have seen all of the videos & medical records and heard all of the testimony.

From what I've heard it's mainly one judge that has pushed through the removal of the feeding tube. And, regardless of the number of judges agreeing or disagreeing, I do not believe judges are perfect and I do believe judges can be misled or be hampered by obtuse laws and lack of precedent. We can have judges that are so blinded by their own prejudices and/or arrogance that they make highly unethical decision. For just one example of this we have had judges in the past that justified things like, well, slavery in the United States. So, I am certainly not one to say, "Well, the judges all said so, so it must be right."

[Vanquisher]

So, do we thus ere on the side of killing her? We will never know her true wishes. So, there is the probability that her true wish is to go on living and be given the therapy she has needed for all of these many years and that could significantly improve her quality of life

I don't think it is killing her. I believe it is allowing her to move on. In the sense that I see her, she is already dead. She is only existing, and her quality of life, even with the best therapy would not have been improved, and will not improve.

That is the key line here - this disabled patient has not had the quality of care he has needed. I'm sure he is in a pitiful state then. Did he choose to not receive the care he needed? If he received the care he needed would he have the complications arising from a lack of care?

He is in a persistent vegitative state, and can not choose for himself to have no care. His family chose that for him. Yet they want him to live so they can receive disability checks. If he received the care he needed, maybe someone would just let the bacteremia take over his body, and let him go too.

What do you base this upon? Are there studies that show that starvation causes no pain or discomfort? I'm intrigued by this line of reasoning because it flies in the face of victims of starvation (such as during WWII) and in the face of current definitions of "torture".

Well, I'm only basing this on the medical knowledge imparted to me by my dh who says that it isn't a bad or painful way to go. If I am wrong on this, I am sorry, but I hardly consider it torture in her case because, in my opinion and the opinion of many others, she isn't aware of anything.

Well, he IS writing her off. Killing someone by neglect (in this case withholding nourishment) is the ultimate "write off". Her life is not worth living - it is written off.

Again, I disagree.

Again, we don't know that because as you said previously no one knows what her wishes are. There are two different parties in this matter with vastly different claims as to her wishes. One of those parties has cared for her for these many years and plans to continue to do so while the other party has "moved on" with his life. We don't know her wishes and it can be reasonably argued that neither does her former husband (I say former because he is already emotionally divorced from her and married to another).

As far as I have seen both parties have continued to care for her. Her parents had her moved into their home, and couldn't handle her care and had to put her back in a facility. I am not saying her parents are bad people. I am sure they think they are acting in the best regard, but just maybe they are being selfish in not wanting to let her go. I don't think that it can be argued that her husband did not know her wishes. I do not see why a man who is so emotionally distanced, as claimed, would carry on with this crusade for 12 years. For 3 years, he did everything he could to give her therapy, and when he realized, as the doctors did, that she was never going to get better, even under the best of circumstances, he fought for her to be able to move on.

And, we go back to the excellent point that Orson Scott Card makes above:

"It is not love of any kind that arrogantly says, “Better to be dead than live like that.”

My answer is, Better to be stupid than to be so “smart” you think you have the right to judge innocent lives as not worth living, just because you wouldn’t wish to live it yourself. "

I have a hard time believing that MOST people would want to live like that. What gives people the right to decide that she should have to keep existing?

That is your speculation. My speculation is vastly different. Sometimes people get so involved in being "right" that they will prove they are "right" at all costs. It's called vindictiveness, it's called pride. It's very real and it happens much more often than it should - and it can and does occur to the point of the killing of another individual. Convincing oneself that such an individual isn't really "alive" despite the facts to the contrary can also contribute to this state.

If I were to die I would most certainly want my husband to move on with his life. I know my husband well enough to know that he loves me enough to care for me for the remainder of my life, consider me his only wife for the remainder of my life (ie not move in with another woman and have children by her while I was living - rather than the overt bigamy presented in this case), and would not consider killing me by a means defined as torture in the civilized world. My husband is very, very different than Terry's husband. My husband loves me.

He fought for this for many years before it was ever in the media. I don't think this is a "need to be right" case. It just doesn't add up. And, again, I don't think he is killing her. I don't see any facts to the contrary. Brain dead is dead IMO.

My husband loves me too, and I love him enough to want him to be happy and not keep alive a garden plant to be married to.

He has also refused to allow his wife to continue her therapy for over a decade. Where is the nobility in that exactly? How is it brave to cut and run as he has done on an emotional level and is doing on a physical level at this moment? Perhaps he does view himself as "brave and noble" and has convinced himself of this. Perhaps that ego is what is driving his current actions.

Her therapy wasn't working. Sometimes things are just practical. She is well cared for by her facility and had never had a bed sore - rare. It is noble in that he is trying to fight for her to be able to move on instead of draining resources that could be used for people who are aware they are receiving it.

Isn't it interesting that you regard allowing a person to live as "quitting" on that person? And, again we are confronting the illogical reasoning that because YOU would not want to live her life that SHE would not want to live her life. It's not about what you want or what her husband wants. We can't know what she wants therefore we must ere on the side of not killing her.

Again, maybe we should err on the side of letting her die instead of trudging on in life, that, YES is not worth living. If my reasoning is illogical than so is yours. Because neither of us can say whether she would want to live like this. IMO it is more tortuous to continue to exist in her state. In your opinion it isn't. They are both opinions. I can only say that you are the first person I have ever met who has expressed to me a want to be kept alive in such a state. So, my perception is that it is much more likely that people should be allowed the dignity of a right to die, as death is a part of life.

Perhaps you didn't mean it this way, but it sounds as if you think that Terry's life would be worth living if she had money and power and was able to inspire and call for new legislation. Because she is much more limited than Christopher Reeve her life is less worth living? By that standard there are millions of people in our nation alone whose lives are not worth living.

You're right, I did not mean it that way. I meant her life would be worth living if she was not brain dead. Yes, her life is less worth living. She contributes nothing, and is a burden.

Additionally, we should also allow parents of brain damaged children to withhold nourishment from those children should they decide the child would be better off dead (or that the child would choose to die if he/she were competent to make such a decision).

People allow their children who are in similar situations to pass on all the time. I think it is a case by case thing. You can't compare quadrapeligics, people with ALS, and the mentally retarded with somone who can not speak, eat, go to the bathroom, think, respond, move, or function as a person. She is brain dead. Christopher Reeve and Stephen Hawking could both articulate that they wanted to live. I would let my child, who I love more than anything, pass away in a situation of brain death. Moreover, I would withdraw care on my child who was going to die anyway if their last days,weeks, or months were to be filled with pain and suffering. I would not want my child to suffer. And, yes, people do it all the time. People withdraw care all the time. This case is rare because people rarely fight over it so much.

[HeartRN]

Wow....Rapunzel, clearly you did very well in debate in college or high school I think you have some very valid points, and you've convinced me in some respects...I just still feel the spouse should make the final decision, but I don't want to necessarily continue debating this point. This is just my personal opinion, based on situations I see every day with patients who are on death's door. And might I also add from a medical/nursing perspective (Luanne, feel free to chime in)...it's pretty remarkable to me that Terry hasn't died already from a superinfection. She must really be able to clear her secretions well via coughing, otherwise I would think that she might have aspirated and/or contracted pneumonia or another infection by now. Which leads to my next point/question that I discussed with DH briefly...wonder if she's ever had a formal swallow study and what it showed? And before all of this hubbub was she a DNR/DNI, just a DNR just a DNI or none of the above? She is, after all, in a hospice facility.

[Meenah]

OK, I'll go out on a limb here. I think her parents are CRAZY, and I think everyone knows how I feel about the Bush family. Has George ever flown back to Washington for anything before this? Hell, he didn't even fly back after the Tsunami in December. This is a private matter, and I really resent the government being involved. Do you really think they are involved because they care about her? Not a chance.
Luanne

Disclaimer - this is a debate forum, not a holier than thou think like me forum. I am only giving my opinion, not trying to convince anyone that they must agree with me.

Love (and agree with) your disclaimer Luanne. And you're right - I can't think of anything else that caused Bush to fly back to Washington.

I've already put my 2 cents in on this case.