Removal of Feeding Tube (pray)

[martha]

I believe all of the hype has clouded judgements. I believe death is a natural part of life's journey. We are all going to die. No one wants it to happen to our loved ones and we and the doctors would hold out hope by giving extreme measures to extend existance. We always hope for a miracle, doctors, spouses and judges included. I believe our technology has gotten hold of the natural progression of the human being. IMHO tubes, forced air and forced nutrition is not the way, at least, not for an extended period of time. If the prognosis is not favorable for a normal life, then who are we to try to prolong it for our own heartfelt loving reasons? What I describe as a normal life is being able, even if paralyzed, to interact with people to some degree. If a person's brain is still functional, then technology can afford them the opportunity to "speak" by means of computer optic interraction. If the brain is non-functional, then it is my belief that life is over and existance is futile. We try to keep them here because we love them and it is we who would suffer if we let them die. We also must consider there is much pressure put upon the family by the opinions of others, ie; how will we be viewed by others if we let our loved ones die. This is the most trying and difficult position to be in. We can all speculate about what we would do. In reality we can never understand until we are placed in that same position.

I pray that this woman will be given the right to live or die without the aid of extreme measures. As someone said, just try to lay still for one hour, and then imagine that for the rest of your existance. The body will live out it's natural life with no help from others. If it is time to leave then let them leave.

Technology is a wonderful thing if it enhances life. If technology only prolongs existance of the body and not the mind and soul, then it is futile. In respect to the husband, I don't think his wife being alive and force fed or not has any bearing upon his relationship with another woman. I do not believe he truly wants to "kill" his wife. He wants her to live or die naturally.

[jamaesi]

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

You're left with a woman who suffered a heart attack 15 years ago, who essentially died but was resuscitated, though not entirely. Her brain had suffered enormous damage from the heart attack. As time passed, her brain further deteriorated -- to the point where much if not most of her cerebral cortex (the portion of the brain that controls conscious thought, among other things) was literally gone, replaced by spinal fluid. Doctors hired by Terri's husband say the deterioration of Terri's brain left her without thoughts or feelings, that the damage is irreversible, and that Terri's life-like appearance is merely the result of brain stem activity -- basically involuntary reflexes we all have. An independent doctor hired by the court reached the same conclusions. Doctors hired by Terri's parents did not dispute the physical damage done to Terri, but they claim there are new therapies that could improve her condition. In two separate trials, the trial court found such claims of potential improvement to be without merit. Terri's body continues to function without her cerebral cortex. She is sustained by a feeding tube surgically inserted into her stomach. She cannot eat through her mouth without a strong likelihood of choking to death.

You're left with a husband who lived with his in-laws following Terri's heart attack, who apparently provided care and therapy for years but who later came to believe Terri would never recover. He believes she would not have wanted to be kept alive in this brain-degenerated condition by a surgically implanted tube. He is apparently willing to continue his fight to achieve what he believes Terri would want despite ridicule, hatred, expense, and threats.

Some believe that removing Terri's feeding tube would cause her pain and is inhumane (I'm no doctor, but the medical information I've seen on this subject uniformly says the opposite.)

Death Process From Withdrawal of Feed Tube

Patients who do not have mental cognition to have a sense of thirst or hunger will not be uncomfortable.

For patients in a persistent vegetative state, there may be no discernible change in their movements.

I'm interested in hearing some hard evidence of how Terri's husband is a meanypooface instead of vague argumentum ad hominems.

If you allow parents to override a spouse's decision, what other rights will we let over-zealous parents take away from their married children?


What is the point of keeping her alive?
Most doctors agree there is no chance for her to recover and therapy will not work. It's selfish to keep her alive just because you can't let go. When your dog gets old- has trouble walking, eating, cleaning himself- you will do the kind thing and have him put to sleep. I'm in no way comparing Terri to an old dog; but, if you love someone, letting them suffer needlessly is cruel.

I can't imagine spending the rest of my life confined to a small bed, unable to communicate, and kept alive only by machines. Recovering after my back surgeries was hell enough for me, unable to move around to take care of myself and stuck in bed for weeks. I couldn't imagine years of it. If my soul was trapped there; in my body, in that bed, in that room... it would surely have withered away long ago.

[Melody]

Originally Posted by EEWRED

A nuisance to a faithless husband grown tired of the toll on his new love interest and depleting bank account — an account that was inflated only because a jury, in 1992, awarded him over a million dollars, mostly as a trust to pay for Terri’s continued care, in a medical malpractice verdict.

Doesn't wash. A divorce would solve both the toll on his new family and bank account. Accepting the $1 million or $10 million that he was offered to give up custody, would also have solved both the toll on his family and bank account.

Originally Posted by EEWRED

She is alive and, periodically, both alert and responsive.

According to the medical reports she is not responsive. These "responses" are just autonomic reflexes and do not indicate that she has any brain capacity to attempt communication or even have awareness of her surroundings.

Originally Posted by EEWRED

Her parents love her and want to care for her. Imagine if you had a child who was defenseless, dependent, and vulnerable — many of us, indeed, need not imagine — and the state told you not only to step aside but that you had to watch, helpless, while it took two weeks to kill her.

If this was a "child", then I would agree with you that it is the parent's decision. However, this is a married adult and outside the legal guardianship of her parents. As a married adult, and without a living will, it falls within her husband's jurisdiction to make these decisions unless proof can be found that the husband has less than pure motives....which apparently has not happened despite the emotional rhetoric of the opposition.

Originally Posted by EEWRED

By court-ordered torture over the wrenching pleas of parents ready and willing to care for her?

Using inflammatory words such as "torture" does not help promote your case...particularly when the medical community is saying there won't be any pain for a variety of reasons.

[Melody]

Originally Posted by lady_lazarus

So this weeks sinister motive is 'advancing the cause of the left'?

Oh, and Maize, I'll answer that question for you. She'll be allowed to die after her parents are dead, unless it suits someone's agenda to keep her alive a little longer.

It won't take that long. She'll be allowed to die when the funds to keep her alive run out.

[Ceridwen018]

People, there is a difference between someone who is living as a vegetable, and someone who is dying. Terri was dying. Her body had already begun the process of death, and was simply frozen due to the feeding tube. For god's sake people, just let the woman die and let it be. It's always very sad when someone dies, but we need to use our brains here. You can't just keep people around forever.

[michel]

Originally Posted by Ceridwen018

People, there is a difference between someone who is living as a vegetable, and someone who is dying. Terri was dying. Her body had already begun the process of death, and was simply frozen due to the feeding tube. For god's sake people, just let the woman die and let it be. It's always very sad when someone dies, but we need to use our brains here. You can't just keep people around forever.

Of course you're completely right Ceridwen. However, just because you are right won't stop those who feel irrationally emotional about this from 'keeping on trying'; and, in a way, you can't blame them.

I have had to the harsh descision of wether to continue keeping an animal alive before now ( and although that was an animal, I can assure you, that, to me, it made no difference), and 'letting it go'. I will never feel 'good' about it's death, but I know it had to die, and I was the only one around who could actually do something about it. And I don't mean physically, I mean emotionally.

A lot of people who will not give up often are reacting, quite subconsciously, for a 'by proxy' emotional need (ie they themselves may well have a fear of death), and the idea of standing by while someone takes the feeding tube out is totally repugnant. There is another point; those who are against the withdrawing of food are, again subconsciously shielding their own consciences.ie if they can say "I was against the withdrawl of the feeding tube", they feel a jolly sight better about themselves and don't have to confront the issue.

[BUDDY]

So, I was pretty much up all night researching this particular case. I want to make clear that this thread is in relation to Terri, and not about right to life and right to die arguments in general. I say this because, while I may agree with you on the euthenasia issue on a case by case basis, in Terri's case there are some startling facts that one should consider before making a decision.

http://www.blogsforterri.com/archive..._facts_abo.php

Also, I think it is important to look at some facts about her husband that for the most part have been left unreported. The women he is seeing now, he has been with for a very long time (I believe about seven years, they are under a common law marriage and have two children together. As legal guardian, he ended her therapy about seven years ago. This therapy was ordered by the state when Terri was awarded the 1.7 million dollar settlement. Curiously enough, he ended the therapy about the same time he started his relationship with his common law wife. Also, if Michael divorces his wife, he will lose the money awarded to Terri, as it will be used for her continued care by her new guardians, her parents. But, if Terri were to die, he will inherit the balance of the settlement. Also, Mr. Schivo and his lawyer have an injuction against anyone filming or taping Terri. This was put in about three years ago. That is why when you see pictures of Terri on the news, they are not dated any earlier than 2002. It should also be noted that up until Michael ended Terri's rehab, she was making slow, but steady, progress towards walking and talking again.

You can choose not to believe all of these facts if you want, but the bottom line is, Terri is not in a vegetative state, her husband has a new family, and yesterday we started starving an innocent young women that, by all the evidence we have, wants to live. And if you try to tell me that she would have wanted to die, I would ask for some kind of signed document proving such. That is usually what the courts demand.

[Ceridwen018]

Terri is not in a vegetative state

At the very most, she is in a vegetative state. Most of her brain is dead, and doctors have declared it so.