Removal of Feeding Tube (pray)

[BUDDY]

Surely if she can't survive without mechanical help, then removing that help will give her a natural death?

This case is not about what is needed to help her survive. It is about what her wishes would have been. Not her husband and not her parents.

[Quoth The Raven]

Originally Posted by EnhancedSpirit

Terry's husband is doing what he thinks is best for his wife. Her parents think they are doing what's right for her. Neither is wrong. It is not for us to judge. We should all give thanks that we are not in this position from any angle. But I ask this, is she being allowed to live, or forced to live. What if it was her time to go a long time ago. Maybe she is suppossed to be an angel now, and she is being held prisoner in her own body. If she is meant to live, leave it up to God, not the doctors, or her family, or machines.

Her parents actually stated in court that had she unequivocally said to their faces,'I would not wish to live in this manner.' they would still be pursuing this fight. It comes down to what they want at this stage...Terri's wishes have been superceded by those of her parents.

[BUDDY]

Her parents actually stated in court that had she unequivocally said to their faces,'I would not wish to live in this manner.' they would still be pursuing this fight. It comes down to what they want at this stage...Terri's wishes have been superceded by those of her parents.

Can you please show me where you have found this? I have not read or heard of this and no one (not evne those who are for her death) have mentioned it. I really, really need to see a souce for this in order to believe it.

[EnhancedSpirit]

I would never think to tell my parents that I don't want to live like that, because I assume they will have already passed before I'd have to face something like that. This is something I would have discussed with my husband, not my parents.

[Quoth The Raven]

Originally Posted by EEWRED

I would agree with you in almost every case out there angellous, but in this case there is sufficient evidence to believe that:

1) She may not have wanted this type of death
2) She may have been misdiagnosed
3) There is a possibility of rehabilitation
4) She is not in a vegetative state
5) She can swallow (she does not drool, she swallows her own oral secressions), and with rehabilitation she may be able to learn to chew and eat
6) The initial court decision that she was in a vegetative state was made on the testimony of three doctors that are right to die supporters and therefore had biased testimony. There were no doctors to testify for the opposing view. Once the decision was made (misdiagnosis ny the court) all future cases and appeals were made with the assumption that the first decision made was the correct one and therefore, any argument made or evidence given by Terri's lawyer was thrown out. This has been a collosal collapse of the court system. This case is not your cut and dry right to die case and anyone who sees it that way really needs to take a closer look at the evidence.

On the current affairs program I was watching last night with archive footage of Jeb Bush on it stating that Terri may have been misdiagnosed, it was then revealed that the doctor who stated this hadn't even laid eyes on Terri - nor even discussed the case with Terri's treating physician - , so she wasn't in a position to actually formulate more than a vague opinion.
The osteopath that stood up and said he could rehabilitate her? Well, Terri's parents had so much faith in him and his skills that when asked to produce 2 expert witnesses, he wasn't one of them, and the two they did produce - while eminently qualified - were unable to produce clear and compelling cases, unlike the 2 expert witnesses produced by Michael Schiavo, or the independant one chosen by the court.
Terris parents have said - in court - that they realise she IS in a persistant vegitative state. They have also said that they would keep her alive at all costs - completely limbless and suffering from numerous chronic illnesses if it came down to it. While Michael Schiavo's word as to what Terri told him she would have wanted may be not good enough for some, I question the motives of people who have stated they would keep the empty shell of their child alive as long as they could regardless of her wishes, and who have not hesitated to demonize their son-in-law and accuse him of criminal acts - in the emails they are circulating and in the media - in an attempt to achieve their ends.

[Quoth The Raven]

Originally Posted by EEWRED

This case is not about what is needed to help her survive. It is about what her wishes would have been. Not her husband and not her parents.

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/WolfsonReport.pdf

It was originally posted in the Schiavo and Political Rhetoric thread. Makes for extremely interesting reading - if as the original poster said - you scrawl through the couple of pages of legalise and get straight into the background of the case.

[linwood]

1) She may not have wanted this type of death

The only person in a position to know what she wanted is her husband.
Through the testimony of Mr.Shiavo numerous court decisions have stated that it was not her intention to be kept alive this way.

2) She may have been misdiagnosed

CAT scans show that the majority of her cerebral cortext has liquified.
This is irreparable damage that cannot be undone.

3) There is a possibility of rehabilitation

Not without a cerebral cortex

4) She is not in a vegetative state

This could be arguable but without a cerebral cortex it doesnt really matter what you call it.

5) She can swallow (she does not drool, she swallows her own oral secressions), and with rehabilitation she may be able to learn to chew and eat

Mr.Schiavos brother was just on CNN last night discussing how the hospice workers have been applying antibiotics to her lips due to the sores from the moisture/saliva that escapes her mouth.
She has been this way for 15 years, she can`t chew, she can`t eat.

6) The initial court decision that she was in a vegetative state was made on the testimony of three doctors that are right to die supporters and therefore had biased testimony. There were no doctors to testify for the opposing view.

There have been numerous unbiased doctors since that time years ago that have concurred with those "biased" doctors.
On the other hand the doctor that Jeb Bush just had observe her for an hour is a board member of The Center for Bioethics and Human dignity.
This org is based on Christian ethics and it`s mission promotes Christian ethics in medicine.
http://www.cbhd.org/aboutcbhd/staff/cheshire.htm
Thats biased and it will not stand, Greer will see through it.
Cheshire is also an adamant opponent of stem cell research, willing to hold science and humanity back for his religious beliefs.

The doctor is a quack.

No one has the right to deny anyone their constitutional rights.
Terrys righst have been established over and over again in State courts and federal courts by her husband and by her friends.
She is being used as a political and religious pawn by everyone from teh President to congress to my governor to the Pope.

Do you really think she`d like those images of her in such a state broadcasted worldwide for the veiwing pleasure of this sick world?
Give her some dignity.

Let her go.

[BUDDY]

I would be happy to let someone go when their is no hope for recovery. For every example that you give to support letting this women die, I can give equal evidence to let this women live. I understand your opinion regarding this case, but I must respectfully disagree with you. There is just to much out there that does not make sense and to many differing opions regarding her brain function for me to agree. The CAT scan that you offer as evidence shows damage to brain function, it does not show that the cerebral cortex is "liquified" as you put it. I say Hardball last night as well. Chris Matthews kept using this term and it simply is an inacurrate description. I agree that many doctors have been called in to see her, but you must agree that none of them can absolutely agree on her state of health. In this case, I think that a presumption of life is the most responsible thing to do. Now, if she were to have a cardiac arrest, and the order to not resusitate is given, that would be different. This is not a "do not resusitate" case. The state of Florida recently ruled that feeding tubes where an "extraordinary measure" in hospital care, and that is what this case is about medically.