living wills and such...

hi all, the shiavo case has been weighing heavily on my mind. with my heart disease and all at stuff... any way, there was one thing that could have prevented all that trouble. a living will or durable power of attorney for health care. here are a couple of links to look into all that... http://www.midbio.org/mbc-about.htm and http://www.abanet.org/aging/toolkit/

 

this could develope an interesting thread.. how do you feel about living in a vegetative state? how and when do you draw the line?

 

My husband and I had discussed years ago that neither one of us would want to live if it took extreme measures to keep us alive.
We had never put anything in writing.
This case has made us realize we need to have it in writing for others to know.

Gal

 

Absolutely, and just to reinforce it I will state publicly that I want no extreme measures taken if I were in that position either.

 

Just make sure you check into your individual state/province/whatever's laws regarding living wills and advance medical directives. In Michigan, a Living Will is not a legal document, you have to have an advance medical directive, it has to be notarized, and it has to be included in your medical records.

Even if you have all your legal ducks in a row, that doesn't stop someone from suing to keep you alive (or to let you die, depending on what you've decided). So it's VERY important to talk to your entire family and close friends about what your wishes are, so there is no misunderstanding. Also, you should talk to the person who will be making that decision for you if you cannot, to make sure they can do what you want them to. If they cannot, then you need to name someone else to do it who is able to carry out your wishes.

 

Some years ago my wife's aunt was admitted to a nursing home, as her blindness had become complete and, living alone, she could no longer care for herself. My wife was horrified to see that she had the phrase "no extraordinary measures" on her documents at admittance. The only thing wrong with her was blindness. (And cantankerousness, but they don't kill you for that yet.)

Anyway, she put them right, and the old girl lived healthily for a few more years before passing away quite quickly.

You have to watch these places.



As for Terri Schiavo, I am surprised that a nation that recoils at the thought of assisted suicide for those of sound mind and intention, is willing to let a women with no clear thoughts or intentions starve to death.

(I am in favour of assisted suicide, as I think forcing a person who does not want to live to continue with life is an egregious violation of human rights, but you have to be sure.)

 

Well, the willingness is not universal. There is much heat and controversey over it, but only among those that have followed the case more deeply than the misinformation that makes it into the evening news or newspapers. Terri is routinely described by the news as being in a coma (blatantly wrong), or in a persistant vegetative state (not as easily defined, but denied categorically by quite a few eminently qualified experts that have examined her, plus nurses and others that have worked with her), because as a nation we do NOT approve of killing someone against their will.

There is a fairly substantial movement in the country, usually below the news' radar, that is working to push the limits beyond the accepted "right to die" standards towards a "right to KILL" standard, allowing the state to end the lives of those that are no use to society. Classifying Terri as PVS moves her into a category that is more accepted for terrmination than someone who is simply brain damaged but aware (which Terri IS). And defining food and water as "life support equipment" is far different than respirators and heart lung machines that are currently defined as such. Denying access to food and water would kill you and me, not just the incapacitated. And total denial of food and water is what they're doing. Terri is capable of swallowing. She CAN take sustinance orally, but her so-called "care givers" have been under strict orders for years NOT to give her anything orally. Including now, when she has no other way to take nourishment, which makes her current order murder by starvation, not removal of life support.

Even for those being kept alive by a respirator, when the respirator is removed, if the patient can breathe on their own, they keep on caring for the patient. The doctor is not allowed to hold her mouth and nose shut to insure that the patient dies. What they're doing to Terri is blatant murder, not removal of life support.

Long article, with massive links to follow, but here's the most comprehensive coverage of Terri's whole story that I've found. If you actually care about the case, it's worth your time.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43463

 

If you prefer a source a little more objective then you may care to take a look at this.


This is the official report from the Guardian Ad Litem appointed by Governor Jeb Bush

http://www.nationalreview.com/pdf/SchiavoFinalReport.pdf

 

It is an interesting article. I have to admit I knew very little about the case, and so it seems do most of the population. I would no doubt be on the other side of the table from you in a debate about assisted suicide and the right to die, but it seems to me that there is much more than that issue at stake here.

I don't like her husband...

As an agnostic, I'm usually a bit leery of an article on an issue like this one that is provided by a religious organization, but there are an awful lot of quotation marks in there.

 

D**n, missed the edit window.


I realise that I may have phrased that in a way that seemed a little churlish.

I meant to cast no aspersions on you G.T. I hope you know me well enough by now to realise that, if not then my apologies

It's just two avid researchers with a differing approach

 

No offense taken. This is a very controversial case, with lots of evidence and rhetoric on both sides of the argument, and lots of disagreement over it.

Much of the "judicial review", including most of the findings the GAL used, were simple review of the evidence already in the legal record. Much of that is questionable, or has been refuted by other experts whose opinions were NOT included in the official record. A few examples from the GAL's report:

He accepts without question Michaels contention that Terri's condition was caused by a heart attack. There are specific blood chemistry indicators present in heart attack cases that confirm a heart attack. Those indicators were NOT present in Terri, indicating she did not suffer a heart attack. There was some forensic evidence she'd been strangled, that has been ignored, even though the couple had been fighting earlier the same day, and Terri was advised by a friend NOT to stay with Michael that night. Conclusive? No. Suspicious enough to have triggered further investigation? Should have been.

The GAL accepts the official positon of PVS, even though the GAL is a lawyer, not a neurologist, and eminent neurologists that have tested her in person and others that have simply seen what they consider conclusive evidence just in the tapes available of her behavior have declared she is not PVS, including a neurologist with Florida's DCF; that testimony was not allowed either.

Both Terri's assigned doctor and Judge Greer are "right to die" activists. Does that prejudice their opinions and behavior? I think it does.

This case has more questions than an Agatha Christie murder mystery.

 

Mm, we wouldn't be on opposite sides of the table totally MrP. Defining "right to die" as the patient's wishes, and considering "heroic measures" such as respirators, heart lung machines etc. that are frequently used to keep a body alive that is not capable of surviving on it's own, we'd be in agreement. Been there and done that with an aunt that died after a severe car wreck, kept alive beyond any hope of healing, and with a written living will stating she didn't want that, our family fought with with hospital to let her go. They refused to pull the plug until the insurance money ran out. Defining food and water as "life support" in the same category as respirators and heart/lung machines sets a dangerous precedent allowing doctors to intentionally kill people that are quite capable of living without any "heroic measures". Air, food, and water are not life support, except in the sense that NONE of us can live without that "support". Dangerous and obscene precedent.

And allowing them to literally forceably kill someone without any clear statement or even clear opinion from the patient that it's their wish, particularly when the controlling opinion may be from her attempted murderer, who is living with another woman and has a couple of kids with HER, and with every single other person that knew her denying that this would have been her wish, makes a mockery of "following the patient's wishes".

If I'd been incapacitated but curable before my divorce, with my ex-wife making the decisions, I'd likely not be here writing this today.

 

That is what I find most disturbing about this case.

 

Me too. See? We do agree from time to time.

 

And if you want a site to read through which is actually objective, coming down on NEITHER side, and not subscribing to the sensationalized BS that's in the news (regardless of which side you're on, it's sensationalized BS, you're kidding yourself if you say otherwise)...

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html

 

That's an outstanding article star, thanks.

 

G.T. I recall reading somewhere that if one asks for wisdom, it would be granted liberally. I think you must have asked at some point in your life.http://forums.majorgeeks.com/images/smilies/smile.gif Fortunately some of us have it. Unfortunately many of those who don't have it, don't listen to those who do. Instead, they actually believe that they are wise. Did you follow that?http://forums.majorgeeks.com/images/smilies/confused.gifhttp://forums.majorgeeks.com/images/smilies/eek.gif

I believe nothing short of the Hand of God will keep Terri from dying. She is merely a pawn in a much larger game than most people can imagine. First, we legalize murder through Roe vs Wade. Which was unelected officials doing more than what they are supposed to under the Constitution. Law making is Congress job. ( I bet most people are unaware that she is trying to reverse that decision). Next we open this door to euthanasia. Fairly soon it will be legal to murder the handicapped as a matter of convenience. If you don't think it will happen, you are just as foolish as the Germans were back in the '30s. They listened and succumbed to his message. If you tell a lie often enough, soon it becomes truth. Take for example the phrase "separation of Church and state." Neither the words separation or church appear anywhere in the Constitution. But we have heard it so many times on TV that most people actually believe it to be in there. What is in first amendment doesn't even remotely mean that. Well, maybe remotely to those without the wisdom to know the difference. Morality has gone through some drastic changes in this country lately. How much lower can we go?

If you take offense to this, then you must stop and think. Is the guy just crazy or might he actually be on to something? To tell the truth, I'm not sure of either choice myself.http://forums.majorgeeks.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

 

This is entirely true. And up until a few years ago, it would have happened already, because feeding tubes are relatively new to the medical scene. Had she had her heart attack 20 years earlier, she'd have died right then.

What people don't seem to realize is that removing feeding tubes happens EVERY DAY in hospitals all across the United States (and in other countries, I'm sure). The only reason we know about this particular case is because the government got involved in it.

 

No offense taken, but I have to say that if the seperation of church and state isn't in the US constitution, it should be. But then I live in Canada, where our state is run by an entirely different religion. Still sucks.

 

What it actually says (and I'm paraphrasing, don't remember the exact wording) is that there will be no state-sponsored religion.

 

Like some of you, I find it hard to accept that the petition to pull the plug would come from someone like Michael Schiavo who has openly severed his marriage ties to Terri. I believe he's laboring under a conflict of interest and, thus, isn't the proper party-in-interest. Setting aside all legalese, I can only wonder what Mr. & Mrs. Schindler feel, having kept Terri safe all her years only to realize that they have inadvertently turned over her fate to someone who doesn't love her enough to want her alive under any circumstance. It would have been different if Terri's wishes were clear. As it is, I think this is murder. This is a case of the law obscuring us from rather than enlightening us on the issues.

 

So, what you're saying is we should just forget about all the advances that we've made in medicine? Just say the heck with people that are sick or injured or have a heart attack. If it would have happened to them a thousand years ago, they would have just died. Let them choke on their steak because 100 years ago there was no such thing as a Heimlich manuever.

 

Here's what it actually says....

[size=+1]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. [/size]



Here's a good link to see what the actual intent of this was...
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/

 

Mark Steyn of the Chicago Sun Times puts it pretty well, at least from the way I see it:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn271.html

 

No. What I'm saying is that everyone who insists that the feeding tube be left in so her death can be "in God's hands" should realize that up until very recently, "God's hands" dealt a LOT of death, and no one considered it cruel or unusual. If there weren't feeding tubes, and she couldn't swallow on her own, then she'd have died of starvation and dehydration years ago.

What I am also saying is that people are acting as if this particular case is unique. It's not. These things happen EVERY SINGLE DAY, and no one hears about it. Why? Because it happens EVERY SINGLE DAY.

And all I can do to combat the posting of sensationalized news stories, which are biased, is to post, again, the only unbiased site I've ever found, that simply presents the facts, without leaning toward one side or the other.

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html

 

The only salient fact is this: The only thing required to keep her alive is sustainance. No extraordinary measures.

To remove it is not the same as "pulling the plug". They are killing her, based on the word of someone who should no longer have the right to advocate for her.

I don't know that it is so common, for a patient to be killed by starving. Maybe it is, I haven't looked it up.

 

It's become fairly common down here, although in most cases, it's done to people that cannot swallow, and therefore can't take things orally. Terri swallows her saliva regulary, does NOT drool (which all by it self refutes most definitions of PVS), and a few nurses have stated that she has swallowed things from them, despite years-long rules that forbade giving her anything orally. The current ruling not only denies her feeding through the tube, it denies allowing even trying to feed her orally. Which takes it even one notch closer to blatant murder. If they'd ever been allowed to try oral feeding, and it been officially successful, they could NOT starve her to death.

Or maybe they could. Every year we move a bit further away from protecting the innocent towards killing the useless.

 

That's the thing...other nurses have documented that she regularly CHOKES on her saliva, and can't swallow it. And the one nurse who gave her Jell-O while she had a feeding tube inserted should have immediately been fired. And would have been had she been "treating" someone in my family.

If she could truly swallow, she wouldn't have a feeding tube. She didn't have one for the first few years, it was only after she became incapable of swallowing that one was inserted.

 

(shrug) As I said earlier, this is a very controversial case, with lots of evidence and rhetoric on both sides of the arguments, and lots of disagreement over it. For every expert and non-expert eye-witness of something, there is someone that disagrees with it. Even on the most basic things. Bottom line is that we don't KNOW much of anything, other than that there is a huge disagreement over almost every facet of Terri's story. I've presented a few things disagreeing with the official versions partly in playing devil's advocate. I sure don't claim to have all the answers. I've sure got a lot of questions though.

Regarding feeding/swallowing, whether she can or not, she's not being allowed to try. There's an easy way to settle the question, or was before this late hour, but the current orders forbid even allowing a trial, and have for a long time.

 

Someone sent me this link http://hyscience.typepad.com/hyscience/2005/02/the_video_micha.html early last fall when Jeb Bush stopped the feeding tube from being removed.

(oops, just realized that they've all exceeded their bandwith. Here's another link that has downloadable versions of the footage http://www.blogsforterri.com/video.php )

After seeing these videos, I knew where I stood.

For myself, I've always thought that I didn't want any extraordinary measures taken to keep me alive... but after seeing Terri, seeing the joy in her eyes when she saw her Mom... I just can't say that I might not want to continue living. I guess I'm glad that it will be Eric making the decision for me if I can't express my desires. I trust him enough to know that he'll do what I would want. I don't think Terri has had that same kind of advocate in Michael Schiavo.

 

Which is why I keep posting the link to Abstract Appeals. No, he doesn't have all the answers, but he freely admits when he doesn't. And it's the only non-biased site I've found that doesn't villify either side, just presents the facts as they are actually known (not just the speculations), and answers some commonly asked questions about the case.

 

Just for a few minutes, let's take a step back from Terri Schiavo and take a look at the current assumptions about PVS in general.

This was first published in Issues in Law and Medicine in 1996

THE PERMANENT VEGETATIVE STATE; ETHICAL CRUX, MEDICAL FICTION?

It's a long read, but it's a complex issue.

 

I have had one of each for the last 15 years. In the military it is mandatory when you deploy to have one of each. My wife and I, both being active duty, have one of each...As a nurse I can say that they have helped families make decisions that would have otherwise been left up to the courts....and you see where that is now.....

Just a side note for everyone......the decision that he has made is the same decision that is made by families everyday.... It is tough position to be in...I have seen families agonize for months on how to handle it.....it is heartbreaking to them....I feel for both sides of the family....

 

Sorry if this has been answered but will someone enlighten me on this: What is the piece of evidence that convinced the court(s) that it was Terri's wish not to be fed "artificially"? Michael Schiavo's word?

 

As far as I know..yes..His word is what the courts are going on....I am not up on the legality of the issue but it would seem that the husband is the guardian and therefore his(her) wishes are what is legally binding. But as I said I am not a lawyer and florida is a tricky state to deal with....

 

Yes. Supposedly while watching a movie on TV at home, Terri commented one time that "I wouldn't want to live that way" concerning some movie character that was on life support in a hospital. That is ALL he claims to have as evidence of her wishes. Which is pretty thin. There are a lot of conditions that all of us would likely make that statement over, but not intending to imply that we'd rather be killed than live that way. Plus, he didn't remember this statement of hers until AFTER he'd won the big bucks in court, where he stated under oath that he needed the big bucks to care for her for the rest of her natural life. So when was he lying? When he was chasing the money, or when he's trying to get rid of her? Glaring inconsistency.

 

The Netherlands are further down the road to killing the useless than we are. I'm curious how all of you feel about their latest proposal to terminate defective babies, mentally handicapped and the demented.

Dutch Gov't Considers Euthanasia Questions

We pay little attention to history, even recent history. Germany went down this road not all that long ago, with disastrous results. Here we go again...

 

And the debate in this country is not all that far behind the Netherlands, although here it still in the debating stage rather than the legislation stage. "Bioethics" has largely become an oxymoron.

http://www.nationalreview.com/smithw/smith200503290755.asp

 

The court didn't just take the word of one man. Several of her freinds also testified that she'd said it at one point or another.

 

I've said it myself, on more than one occasion, in situations I wouldn't want, but where I wouldn't want to be terminated. Casual comments may, or may not be an indicator of intent in THIS situation. Michael's stated intent in the suit for money and his intent in termination is still clearly inconsistent. The most you can say about Terri's real intent is that we have very, very little evidence to go on. Clearly not enough to state it positively one way or the other.

 

Several courts of law disagree.

 

Of course, which is why this is still an issue for a lot of people. Including me. The basic definitions of who is truly alive, and whose lives qualify for protection under the law, and the shift from allowing those who CAN'T live without specialized medical support to in effect killing those that can't feed themselves I find disturbing and immoral. I'll find it that way whatever the courts are allowed to do currently. And the ongoing debate among the bioethicists that initially try to define what's right and wrong I find totally obscene. If the current proposals are accepted in the Netherlands, their judges will be routinely be ordering the murder of the mentally handicapped, for convenience and economic reasons. Convenience and money do not trump morals and ethics. Not without an even higher price to society.

 

Why is it that to kill a murderer requires proof "beyond the shadow of a doubt", but to kill an invalid, hearsay is good enough?

 

I agree with you. If all the courts had to hang on to was Michael's and some friends' words, that would be hearsay and in any kind of legal proceeding, unacceptable as evidence. However, the evidence of Terri's parents might be hearsay as well, so they took the word of who they consider her "next of kin." (I don't think he should be considered her next of kin, but that's another thread.)

I still think Terri should be kept alive absent clear evidence as to her wishes. They should err on the side of life. They can always remove the feeding tube if clear evidence that this is Terri's wish comes out later. If, when, she dies, there is no turning back.

 

Of course this is completely irrelevant to the courts, but I would think that if Terri didn't have the will to live, she would have died long ago. There is only so much that the medical field can do to keep someone alive. If they have lost the will to live, their body will shut down on it's own. I saw it firsthand with my grandmother who medically should have survived her cancer treatment, but somewhere along the line got it in her head that she was going to die.

 

Terri Shiavo has passed away.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v173/star17abby/cry.gif

 

Rest in peace Terri, and may the family members find peace and start looking forward as well. It's been a long vigil.

In the mean time, most of us will return to our own concerns and forget about Terri fairly quickly... and Pete Singer and the other so called bioethicists will continue in their never ending quest to define humanity down.

 

Just heard on our 6am news that Terri has died. I feel for all (of the family) concerned. The others should have butted out, particularly those politicians, actors and actresses wanting 5 minutes of fame.

Starving a person to death is terrible. Keeping her alive with feeding tubes is terrible too. Glad I did not have to bear that pain and have to make a decision one way or the other. RIP Terri. Bazza