Terri Schiavo

[Meenah]

What do you think about this topic?

I personally think the spouse has the final decision. I have been a nurse for 15 years and could write a book about death,dying with or without dignity, feeding tubes, life support and CRAZY families.
Luanne

I think both sides in this case have been through an awful lot -- some self-inflicted, some not.

My personal preferences color my opinion about this. If she is truly in a vegetative state as the court appointed physicians have decided, and I were in her shoes, I would want the feeding tube removed. I think her spouse should get to decide.

This whole situation makes me really glad that DH and I have a living will and all that junk.

[DCJenn]

This is one that my colleagues and I have debated on numerous occasions. First, if it were me, I would NOT want to be left in that state. Even if I wasn't cognizant of the fact that I WAS in that state.

BUT, there's a fine line between her mental status and the mental status of many of the people who recieve services for mental retardation and developmental disabilities. I have had many, many clients over the years that have received nutrition via G or J tubes, require oxygen, etc. So, for me the debate is (and it really is a debate that I have internally) does the time of the acquisition of the disability matter?

Because you're born with the disabilty and there is the premise that over time you may learn something- to sit up, to swallow, to breathe... different than the disability after a hideous accident when you have LOST those very abilities. I don't know. and I'm not sure how anyone can know, nor how anyone (Congress, the courts) can legislate an answer.

My opinion on the individual case is that the spouse should have the final say. I married my spouse with the implicit understanding that he is now my "family" and my parents don't have primary "responsibility" for me. But, I have also amde it clear and put it in writing what my expectations for my long term treatment will be. I know there are thousands of stories of miraculous recoveries- I don't need to be one of them.

I have no problem with palliative care, with assisted suicide, etc. as long as it is clear that the decision is made by the person and can be documented or heard. My FIL made it very clear during his last week that he was done, finished, tired. We ensured that he was comfortable and he died peacefully.

The issue in Florida is problematic because the parents say one thing and the spouse says another. How can the courts deny the right of the spouse? (and proves once again, that we all need to make sure that our fnal wishes, whatever they are, are IN WRITING)

Bottom line: in this case, in all cases like this- in my opinion, the person making the choice should be- in order: spouse (including domestic partners), children, parent, close personal friend, physician committee.

How to justify this with what I do for a living- It's a toughie....

Jenn

[PrincessFiona]

I feel for both her husband and her family...and most of all, for her. I wouldn't want to be in that state ESPECIALLY if I was cognizant of it. I believe that the feeding tubes should be removed and that she should be allowed to die peacefully.

As to the disabilities, issue, Jenn...I had a recent experience that really made me think about this issue. The girlscouts here decided that the girls should do community service (not a bad idea) and should help a family who had a child with a disability (also not a bad idea). The family that they chose though had a little girl (8 yrs old) who was brain dead, on a ventilator and couldn't sit. Her limbs were so stiff that she had to be either laying down or carried. The mom chose to carry her much of the time.

The little girl has absolutely no hope of any type of meaningful recovery at all. She has to be aspirated exteremely frequently and fed through a gi tube. She has no ability to interact at all...she can't blink in response to a question, etc.

Why the girl scouts chose this girl for our 8 year olds to have their first exposure to a child with a disability is beyond me. It also didn't work out because it was too overwhelming for the girls.

My gut response though, Jenn....was....(feel free to get mad at me) that the little girl would be better off dead...as would be her mother and her little brother who gets no attention. It's a terrible think to think, I know...but she has no quality of life, no chance of a meaningful recovery, she zaps alot of money in healthcare resources and is a great burden to the family. The mother still clings to the 'someday she'll wake up' dream, and I applaud her for the work she has done.....but I just think that her life is a real tragedy.

I have seen a lot of linking of religion to the Terry Shaivo case and the opposition to the pulling of the life support. I don't understand this. Aren't we not supposed to fear death...isn't it supposed to be better than life on this earth? If God intended for Terry to live then wouldn't he have given her back the ability to care for herself? I also know republicans in the congress are really pushing for her to be allowed to stay on life support. Are they willing to increase taxes and funding then for these social programs to help all of the Terry's out there?

Is everyone sorry that they just read this? I'm sorry if I stepped on anyone's toes.

kris

[Meenah]

I agree with your comments Kris. I feel for everyone in this case, but I think if the parents want to continue to prolongthis, they should personally be paying the bills with no assistance from medicare/medicaid/etc.

On a similar line of thought, I believe smokers who get lung diseases and continue to smoke should not be allowed medicare/medicad dollars on healthcare.

Luanne

I have seen a lot of linking of religion to the Terry Shaivo case and the opposition to the pulling of the life support. I don't understand this. Aren't we not supposed to fear death...isn't it supposed to be better than life on this earth? If God intended for Terry to live then wouldn't he have given her back the ability to care for herself? I also know republicans in the congress are really pushing for her to be allowed to stay on life support. Are they willing to increase taxes and funding then for these social programs to help all of the Terry's out there?
kris

I agree wholeheartedly and you asked all the right questions, Kris. I don't understand this mentality either. I would not want to be left on life support if were in this poor woman's predicament. I think the spouse should have the final say and it's disconcerting to see this tug of war.

In regards to the young girl, I feel the same way, that she would be better off moving on. This whole issue brings up many conversations I have had with the Neonatologists I have worked with about resusitating premature babies and the rights of the parents. I have heard too many stories of arrogant doctors going against the wishes of the parents and resusitating premies that just like that young girl, don't have a chance for an even remotely normal life and cost the parents years and sometimes a lifetime of hardship.
This is a powerful subject that incompasses so many issues.

[SuzySunshine]

This case just makes me stress to all of my family and friends, GET A LIVING WILL, advanced directive, etc. I'm sure her parents mean well but she should be allowed to go.

[Rapunzel]

Well, I have a variety of thoughts go through my head when I think about this case:

1) When my husband's older brother was six months old he was in an accident that caused severe brain damage. His parents were informed by his doctors that he would be in a vegetative state his entire life - such was the extent of his brain damage. Well, they worked very hard with this child - VERY HARD (my mil would spend hours every day doing the physical therapy that she and her husband had been trained to do in the expensive program they went through to be able to do this themselves). The result? He ended up at the age of 15 being on the level of about a four year old. For a child predicted to be in a permanent vegetative state that was pretty impressive! My husband has read the autopsy report for this brother (he died in a car wreck at about the age of 16) and his brain, did indeed, show severe organic brain damage.

Now, why does my brain link this significant part of my in-laws' lives and Terry Shaivo?

Well, Terry is supposedly in a permanent vegetative state according to the experts her husband has hired. Her parents and their experts feel that with intense therapy she would be able to function on some level again. It sounds an awful like what happened to my deceased bil.

2) How does a life become "worth" living? Is being severly brain damaged so horrible that it would be better to be dead? If that were the case there are a number of severly brain damaged individuals in this world that we are deeming unworthy of life. I do think this particular case is going to have a larger impact than just this particular family in that it has gone through the court system setting a precedent for others. What if a family has a child that becomes severly brain damaged? Would that family be allowed to starve their child to death (as is being fought over in the Schiavo case) because they deemed the child's life not worth it? For me, this goes back to what has been discussed by the "Professor" Singer who recommends that those without what he believes is a certain "awareness" should be freely abandoned to death. This case does set a precedent for others, it is about a very serious issue, and because if these facts it is highly worthy of being closely examined by lawmakers.

3) Is starving an individual to death merciful? That is what it boils down to in Terry's case. She will have her feeding tube removed and she will die over the period of a couple of weeks of starvation. What a way to go.

Her heart functions, her brain does function (albeit on a level different than "normal"), she can breath on her own, etc, etc. She needs a feeding tube to gain nourishment - just as many other people do such as those who have cystic fibrosis (such as the little neice of a very close childhood friend of mine). Does this set a precedent for making it so that it is permissible to have a feeding tube removed when all other vital organs function on their own simply because family members desire it? Is death by starvation an acceptable way to allow someone to die? I think this question more than any others drives the more "religious" supporters of Terry being allowed to live. It is a matter of torturing an individual to death for many.

4) If I've learned anything from this case, it is that it is very important that all of my family members (parents, husband, in-laws, children when they get older) be on the same page regarding my wishes should I be put on life support of any kind. I have had talks with my husband about my wishes, but I will also be having a talk with my parents in the near future on this subject....

Jennifer

[Rapunzel]

BTW, my wishes should I be in a situation requiring resuscitation are that I will be allowed to die should it be clear I would need mechanical assistance with breathing and/or pumping my blood for the remainder of my life. In that instance, I would wish my viable organs donated to needy recipients and I would want my husband to find and marry a woman who would love my children as much as I do. Otherwise, I have no problem with my life being saved.

It's a difficult subject, no doubt.

Jennifer

After thinking about this some more, I have a few other thoughts about it.

First, I think that the spouse relationship trumps the parental relationship. Even in the reverse (though less likely to have progressed this far) situation of the husband wanting to keep the feeding tube and the parents feeling it would be her wish to have the feeding tube removed, I think the spouse's opinion carries more wieght.

Second, I wonder how often similar situations crop up -- specifically, the decision to remove support from someone in her state. There has to have been other instances of family members agreeing on a course of action absent a living will or advanced directives. I guess what I'm saying is that given all the attention to this case, I wonder if people protesting have thought about all the other situations where the same thing happens. Not that it would change their opinion but there is SO much attention focused on this, obviously because the family disagrees. I suppose that without a medical power of attorney my FIL might have been kept alive longer than he wanted to be (or we thought he wanted to be....). But is this going to result in more attempts at legislation like the FLA senate (house?) tried to pass saying that people w/o living wills have to be kept on support?

All the more reason to have a living will and be sure that family members understand exactly what you want!

[HeartRN]

Not sure how I feel about it, to tell you the truth...but I am tired of hearing about it on the news!

One thought....apparently there is some thinking that her spouse may have alterior motives in wanting her to pass.....I guess the guy has questionable character.

Either way, I firmly believe this is a private matter, and should stay within the confines of family decision making. I really don't want congress deciding when I get to die....

Not sure how I feel about it, to tell you the truth...but I am tired of hearing about it on the news!

No kidding!

Either way, I firmly believe this is a private matter, and should stay within the confines of family decision making. I really don't want congress deciding when I get to die....

I agree!

[HeartRN]

Addendum: I'm right there with Luanne, though.....I see stuff like this all the time. In fact, we have a person in our ICU right now in a similar situation (anoxic brain injury). I wouldn't want to live like this.....

Might I also add....I am really tired of other people deciding that their God is my God so therefore, people don't get to make very personal decisions about life, death, and what they consider a high quality of life to be....because this is "not what God wants" and it's "playing God"......If God is so "universal" as these folks profess, why don't we ship every starving, sick little person from every country in the world here so there is no "suffering" and then EVERYBODY can live ad infinitum with a big 'ole tube in their belly!!!!!!!!!!!!! There, I'm done now!!!!!!!!!!

[Rapunzel]

Well, let's first of all not start bashing those of us who believe in a higher power. I'm seeing that creep into this conversation and I find it disturbing. Our Declaration of Independence calls for the following universal human rights: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. What is being argued by those accused of pushing their relgion upon others is that a person who is not brain-dead has the right to be alive and keep living.

Now, somethings I'd like to know from those of you who believe it is OK for her husband to demand her feeding tube be removed:

1) Is starvation an acceptable form of dying? Is it merciful? Is it torturous? Would you be OK with starving to death? Would you allow your child(ren) to starve to death? If it (ie starvation and/or dehydration to death) is illegal according to the Geneva Convention (ie illegal to treat prisoners in such a manner) then why is it ethical to treat an innocent in such a manner?

2) If a person is not brain-dead - simply brain damaged - and his/her other organs function just fine except for portions of his/her digestive tract, is that person's life not worth living? What is the purpose of life?

3) With the divorce rate what it is in the United States and alarming new evidence that the rate of infidelity within marriage is at an all-time high, why is heresy from a husband taken over heresy from a parent? After all, that is what we're talking about here - not a legal, written order, rather, heresy. And, let's not forget that the assertions made by Terry's husband did not begin until much later during her care after he won a malpractice lawsuit regarding her medical care. Additionally, the cause of Terry's original heart attack causing her current condition has never been investigated - medically or legally - according to her family (parents and sister). There is suspicion that she and her husband were having "marital" difficulties prior to her sudden heart attack.


I see far too many consequences of the court's decision in this matter to be able to support it in any way. It sets a precedent for parents allowing their brain-damaged children to be starved to death should they require a feeding tube. It sets a precedence for allowing anyone without the ability to make a life/death decision and who requires a feeding tube to be starved to death per the orders of a legally related individual. If we were talking about a brain-dead person whose heart could not beat on its own or who could not breath on his/her own without mechanical assistance then that would be an entirely different subject. That's not the issue here, though. It's a matter of a woman who is brain damaged (ie she functions and can possibly improve if she receives the care her husband has denied her since 1993) being starved to death.

One more question on the subject:

If Terry did not require a feeding tube would she still be deemed not worthy of life? Would it be acceptable to kill her by some other means?

Jennifer

Do you mean heresy or hearsay? Why should the husband be believed over the parents? I would think that generally speaking, a spouse would have a better line on their spouses wishes. From this thread, I have the understanding that some aspects of his character are questionable. I suppose that if there were evidence that he had been having an affair or had been consulting a divorce attorney or something then there would be a case for him having ulterior motives. (I haven't followed this story very closely other than what is on my Yahoo! frontpage.)

I don't think that belief in a higher power means that you have support her being kept alive.