DescentBB

Posted: **Wed Mar 16, 2005 5:23 pm**

By now most of you know who Terri Schiebo is (or isn't depending on how you look at her). The question in my mind is quite frankly, very disturbing...especially how your religious, moral and ethical views all come tumbling togeather.
On the one hand we have a simple yes/no decision of whether Terri should be artificially be kept alive when her brain is dead (as decreed by knowing doctors).
It becomes more complex when the husband says his wife did not wish to be kept in a vegetative state and the plug should be pulled. Terri's parents on the other hand, say no and that maybe one day they will have their beautiful daughter back as a normal person.
Now here comes some difficult questions. If Terri(or any other person) is brain dead is there:

1) Some moral or ethical philosophy that says the body should be kept going?

2) Should lawmakers get all emotional over this one case and start passing laws against pulling the plug?

3) Lastly and perhaps the most difficult question of all, by being brain dead and having the body stimulated artificially, what happens to that persons soul? Is it gone? Does the soul get to go to heaven? Is it trapped in some kind of purgetory, vascillating between here and there. Is it screaming, unheard, to be let loose while good intentions keep it caged?
Who is being more cruel? The Husband? The parents? The govt. for trying to intervene and pass judgement by consensus?

I'll read with some interests your replies.

Posted: **Wed Mar 16, 2005 5:45 pm**

1) I don't see any reason why "the body should be kept going". However, it's at least questionable whether that's what's going on, or whether the brain is still somewhat active. This is why the best thing for everyone involved would be to put someone from outside the family in charge.

2) Special cases make bad laws. Making any overarching law either way would be a bad idea. The only thing they should consider doing is putting an outsider in charge to ensure everything being done is in her best interests.

3) If the brain is completely dead, I'd imagine the soul would have also departed. I'm not an authority on soul-body mechanics, but that's my best guess. But, again, it's questionable as to whether or not the brain is really dead.

I don't know who's being more cruel, or if anyone is doing it intentionally. That's why I'd want an outsider put in charge -- someone with no possible ulterior motives or emotional attachment to the woman.

Posted: **Wed Mar 16, 2005 10:01 pm**

Im not dead until I stop moving, breathing, heart beating, and brain waving.

Posted: **Wed Mar 16, 2005 10:25 pm**

I'm actually not familiar with the story, probably because I've been away for a little while, and I don't watch the news with any regularity.

However, I do know that this is a very sensitive issue, especially for those who have gone through the wrenching decision of deciding the fate of a loved one who may or may not ever recover. I once debated a similar issue in a high-school class... not something I'd want to do again, because the emotional, religious, and ethical dilemmas collectively tend to blur the important points.

1) As Lothar said, if it's absolutely clear that nothing but the body still remains viable, there's really no ethical reason to say it should be kept running.

But I'm sensing a bit more in the question: what about the situation where we don't know if the person will ever recover?

In that case, I feel that there is definitely some ethical and moral reason to keep the person alive for an appropriate period of time, taking into account their situation, pain level, and any clear last wishes they have left (e.g. my wife knows that if there's no real chance to revive me, I'd want to be let go, and have my organs donated).

The difficult point comes in defining that "appropriate" time. I'm not sure that there are any good 'rules' to go by; it's very subjective, and I think it would depend on the case. For example, the situation for a comatose person with a good chance of recovery will be much different than the situation for someone whose brain and body have been virtually dead for a long time from a degenerative disease.

Like I said, I don't think there are any guidelines where you can say "you have to give them X days/months/years", but I do feel that it would be unethical not to give someone a reasonable chance (if there is indeed any chance of recovery). In these situations, it's generally up to the family, and you can only hope that they make the best decision despite any emotional or financial complications.

2) I'm honestly not sure what kind of lawmaking actions would be appropriate for this issue, so I'll jump to...

3) Wow.. okay, first of all we may have some semantic differences between our definitions of "soul"; for now, we'll just assume the definition about the 'spiritual' component of ourselves which continues to exist after physical death.

I think the "screaming, unheard, caged, purgatory" image you brought up sounds a bit too much like a Hollywood spiritual horror flick. That logic says something like, "a person's life is connected to both their soul and body, so as long as the body survives, the soul can't leave, so it must be trapped somewhere."

But I don't see it that way at all. The soul is not a physical entity, at least not limited to our corporeal existence, so I don't think the physical constraints of time and space would apply. To say that our soul is restricted to the location of our body, or that it experiences time in the same way our bodies do, is putting too much emphasis on our physical reality.

And, besides, if the soul is held by the body's life, what determines the point when it can leave? When a heart stops beating or the lungs stop breathing? People have been revived from that point. What about when the neurons in the brain quit firing? Or does the soul have to wait until every cell in the body dies?

It's a popular idea, and images of the soul rising from a recently-perished body makes for good drama, but I'm not at all convinced that's how it works. Guess I'll just have to wait to find out when my time comes...

Posted: **Wed Mar 16, 2005 10:41 pm**

The woman's husband (who, IIRC, has a girlfriend and will remarry as soon as the woman is dead) claims she stated she wouldn't want to be on life support.

Her parents claim that, in fact, she would want to be on life support, and furthermore, she has been denied a lot of treatment that would help her recover. There are even rumors around that her husband was responsible for her condition in the first place, and that he's not trustworthy.

That's what makes this particular case so hard, and that's why I think the only reasonable solution is to appoint an outsider as her guardian.

Posted: **Wed Mar 16, 2005 11:14 pm**

I've heard report that she does indeed react to stimuli and at times shows emotion such as crying.

Dobson has a large article on it on his site at http://www.family.org

Posted: **Wed Mar 16, 2005 11:20 pm**

Which is why each of us should have documentation written up to spell out our own wishes should we find ourselves in such a situation. Keep it with your will or estate plan, etc. As for woodchip's question, I have no idea about the issue with the soul, but I have confidence that God can handle all the details of the issues that seem to tangle us up so much. After all, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Posted: **Wed Mar 16, 2005 11:26 pm**

Duper wrote:I've heard report that she does indeed react to stimuli and at times shows emotion such as crying.

Dobson has a large article on it on his site at http://www.family.org

I've also heard from a friend (who's also an MD) that such responses are typical of those who are brain dead. In other words, there's not enough there to be sure, especially not second-hand.

What she needs is direct observation by someone who doesn't have to answer to either her husband or her parents.

It should be noted: someone recently offered her husband a million dollars if he'd turn custody over. He refused. Both sides have their explanations: either he really is just trying to honor her wishes and he refuses to give up, or he's responsible for her condition so he doesn't dare allow her to recover and testify against him.

Either way, neither he nor her parents should be in charge of her care.

Posted: **Wed Mar 16, 2005 11:59 pm**

If the will of the person is known, thatâ??s what should be done. However, in cases like this where the person can't proclaim her will, knowing "her will," should be scrutinized judicially on par with a death sentence.

Posted: **Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:19 am**

Lothar wrote: What she needs is direct observation by someone who doesn't have to answer to either her husband or her parents.

I would think Lothar, over the intervening years and numerous court cases regarding Terri, she has been "observed" by qualified outsiders and thus the reason why the courts are allowing the plug to be pulled.

What I don't understand, after all the testimony given, why politicians seem to think they know better and want to pass a law. Better they should try to pass the hemerroids that occlude their "wither the wind" brains.

Posted: **Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:39 am**

I don't know who the person is you're talking about, but as far as I'm concerned there is really no distinction between brain-dead and dead.

Without the mind the body is just some biological structure that's being kept alive by external stimuli. There really shouldn't be any reason to keep said person on life support, except for keeping organs working until they can be removed for transfer.

Posted: **Thu Mar 17, 2005 1:28 pm**

Tetrad: Google search for Terri Schiavo (I don't think the proper spelling has been given yet... though I'm amazed so many here haven't heard anything about her.)

Woodchip, the question has always been, do those "qualified outsiders" count as outsiders if they have to answer to her husband? I say they don't -- as long as they're trying to follow his wishes or his directives. They might be totally unbiased, and they might be right, but they simply can't be *trusted* to be unbiased or right given the situation.

That's why the courts need to step in, not with some emergency law that does something stupid, but with a simple transfer of guardianship. Laws that say "you can't remove the feeding tube" are only reasonable as temporary measures in order to keep her (possibly) alive until somebody finds a way to appoint an unattached guardian who'll look out for HER interests instead of her parents' interests or her husband's interests.

Politicians are passing laws because a lot of people have contacted them and said "you need to save this poor woman" -- because her parents have made her story well-known. What they need to do is stop trying to save her, and just try to put someone in place who's qualified to make the decision without any ulterior motives.

Posted: **Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:01 pm**

Lothar, the courts have stepped in by delaying pulling the plug. I can't help but believe both parties have had expert testemony regarding Terri but the ultimate ruling is...pull the plug.
Terri's family is also saying that Terri's husband may have caused her condition and doesn't want her to "wake up" for fear of what she may say. Again, if there was any credible evidence regarding a crime, I'd have to imagine the police would be looking into it.

Posted: **Thu Mar 17, 2005 10:38 pm**

woodchip wrote:Lothar, the courts have stepped in by delaying pulling the plug.

Right. I know this. Like I said, the only way it's reasonable for them to do it is if they're buying time until they can appoint an unbiased guardian.

I can't help but believe both parties have had expert testemony regarding Terri but the ultimate ruling is...pull the plug.

If that was the ultimate ruling, there wouldn't still be a battle going on. It's as simple as that.

Terri's family is also saying that Terri's husband may have caused her condition and doesn't want her to "wake up" for fear of what she may say. Again, if there was any credible evidence regarding a crime, I'd have to imagine the police would be looking into it.

Probably so -- but what if the main evidence would be in the form of her testimony?

All I'm saying is: the situation is so ridiculously muddy, and there are so many possible ulterior motives, that nobody currently involved can be trusted to do the right thing for Terri. The only reasonable thing to do is to put somebody who doesn't have any possible ulterior motives in charge, and let them deal with her without having to answer to either her parents or her husband.

Posted: **Fri Mar 18, 2005 2:20 pm**

Wow... more lawmakers getting into it...

Apparently a congressional committee that's been discussing this case has requested Terri Schiavo to appear before the committee as a witness.

here wrote:Federal law protects a witness "from anyone who ... influences, obstructs, or impedes an inquiry or investigation by Congress," Frist said.

Now that she's been subpoenaed, removing the tube before she's testified becomes a federal offense.

Such a strange case...

Posted: **Sat Mar 19, 2005 4:06 pm**

Have any of you read why they are letting her starve/dehydrate to death? It's such a horrific way to let anyone die. If they're gonna kill her, let her go peacefull with a shot in the arm.

Posted: **Sat Mar 19, 2005 5:35 pm**

Gooberman wrote:Have any of you read why they are letting her starve/dehydrate to death? It's such a horrific way to let anyone die. If they're gonna kill her, let her go peacefull with a shot in the arm.

I agree; starving/dying of thirst is not a pleasant way to go. I like how it's treated as "mercy killing." At least in my opinion, what the legal system is committing in this case is nothing short of murder. It's not like she's been on a ventilator for the past ten years; she's able to breathe completely on her own. And, from the testimony of some eyewitnesses, it would seem that she's far from brain dead. Why can't her husband just turn over full custody to her parents and be done with it? Why is he so committed to ending her life? I can't understand his motivation at all, but I highly suspect that his girlfriend and two children with her may factor into it. Last time I checked, too, providing nutrition and hydration is a fundamental staple of medical care, supported as such by numerous human rights organizations and the Pope, among others; being able to remove them is a medical road I'd rather not tread down. What Congress/Jeb Bush are doing may not be entirely constitutional, but constitutionality be damned if an innocent person's life is in danger.

Posted: **Sat Mar 19, 2005 7:03 pm**

Reconsider what you are saying. Nobody in a persistant vegetative state has ever recovered. The brain is dead. Period. Now that the tubes are removed, unless the parents can induce the body to eat without artificial means, Terri can finally be put to rest. She has been like this since 1992. Her condition was caused by a heart attack and oxygen was kept from her brain for too long a time. While sad, it is sadder still that people want her body kept like it is for another 40 years just to salve their conscious or to make political hay. Let her rest in peace.

Posted: **Sat Mar 19, 2005 7:10 pm**

But woodchip, there's a lot of evidence suggesting that she is NOT in a persistent vegetative state. As I said above, there have been reports of her smiling at and interacting with people. If there's even the chance that she still has mental capacity, how can you advocate letting her die? Think of her parents; there's a very real chance that their daughter is still with them, and yet her husband and, it seems, the entire US judicial system want her dead. It's an absolute shame. If some of you don't believe that there is a "culture of death" in this country, I'd hope that this case might make you reconsider.

Posted: **Sat Mar 19, 2005 7:15 pm**

Double post

Posted: **Sat Mar 19, 2005 7:35 pm**

Top Gun wrote:But woodchip, there's a lot of evidence suggesting that she is NOT in a persistent vegetative state. As I said above, there have been reports of her smiling at and interacting with people.

I was reading something from someone who has worked with post-coma patients for several years (although is not a medical practitioner) and she happened to say something that I think is relevant. The context of this is that somebody asked her what Rancho level Terri would be at, where Rancho levels are based on post-coma/TBI patients gaining back cognitive abilities and so forth:

I think Terri Schiavo would be rated on the Glasgow Coma Scale. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasgow_Coma_Scale This means she is in a vegetative state, but may have motor reflexes (i.e. eye movements) and the like. I've seen footage of her and can assure you that she looks like many people in a vegetative coma. Coma does not always mean laying with your eyes closes perfectly still - on the contrary many times they resemble Ms. Schiavo. I suppose if they wanted to use the Rancho scale for her - she would be a level I with no sign of ever progressing. However, they only use Ranch when they think people are awakening from coman, this doesn't seem to be the case with her. She's been in that state for years. Rancho progression is made rapidly over the course of 6months to a year.

And if anyone is curious if I would want the plug pulled if I was in her shoes, without a ★■◆●ing doubt. That is a picture perfect example of a living hell. I doubt she has any self-awareness though, so it probably doesn't matter to her. She is a large organism with bodily functions - that's about the best way to describe her state. Her mind is gone, she is just motor reflexes and cerebal cortex functions.

Posted: **Sat Mar 19, 2005 9:26 pm**

Tetrad,

what do you do when some doctors say exactly what your friend did, and others look at the exact same video and say the opposite? I've seen comments both ways, all from doctors.

Who should get the benefit of the doubt here?

Posted: **Sat Mar 19, 2005 9:43 pm**

I just heard that they won't even let her parents put an ice chip in her mouth. This is ****ing torture. Thank God the House and Senate have the balls to get involved; let's just hope the federal courts do the right thing for once.

Posted: **Sat Mar 19, 2005 10:47 pm**

depending on her condition, she won't last more than a week without water. Her system's resources are probably already pretty well taxed. It's not super horrible for someone in her condition. I've seen people go like this many times in a nursing home.... people that are dying from cancer or some terminal disease. They go unconscious and start spiking fevers (104 or so) but don't seem to be uncomfortable.

I know that sounds kinda cold and gross, but it happens every day. That being said, I don't agree with this. I;ve never heard of a case turning like this. Get a "Will to Live" written up. Everyone; so this doesn't happen to you at some time. Make it detailed. ..what kind of life support and what kind of "heroic measures" to take or not to take in the case of accident or illness. This whole thing copuld have been avoided with one. :\

Posted: **Sat Mar 19, 2005 10:55 pm**

Lothar wrote:and others look at the exact same video and say the opposite? I've seen comments both ways, all from doctors.

Who should get the benefit of the doubt here?

If it were just the video, I would be inclined to agree with you that you really need to give Ms. Spinal-fluid-for-a-cerebral-cortex the benefit of the doubt since it's really just an opinion battle.

That said, this particular case is about as cut and dry as you can get. I don't know who the doctors are that are on Terri's side, their motive (if any) or their involvment in the case, or either what videos they have seen (I've heard that Terri's parents just spliced together the footage that shows that there might be something there, but when pressed by the courts they are unable to provide anything reproducable), but given the fact that Terri doesn't have a working brain anymore she's been gone in any sentient sense for quite some time.

My main point in posting that quip is that the majority of people (myself included until very recently) are unfamilar with even the basic knowledge of what exactly is going on with coma patients. This type of sensationalized case is more ripe than usual for misinformation being spread.

Posted: **Sat Mar 19, 2005 11:15 pm**

Tetrad wrote:given the fact that Terri doesn't have a working brain anymore...

Again... according to who? Some doctors say she's braindead, some say she's not, and there are allegations that her husband won't allow certain diagnostic tests that would show for sure. (I've read this in about 10 places, but I don't know of any official source for this info, so I'll call it an allegation.)

Two days ago, you didn't even know who Woodchip was talking about. Are you telling me you've now studied this so deeply that you know for a fact this woman really is braindead?

Posted: **Sat Mar 19, 2005 11:23 pm**

shiny object

Posted: **Sat Mar 19, 2005 11:38 pm**

Ever since I moved to Florida, I've known about this woman. I'd hope she could die just so somethign else could be on the news.

If the media were not involved, the woman probably would've been dead years ago. But like Tetrad said, the case has been so oversensationalized that it is now a "big deal."

Basically, all we know is there is no clear intent of the woman on what she would have wanted. The husband, the person closest to her, says she would have not wanted to live while the parents seem to never want to give up hope--which is understandable. But after so many years, just give it up. Let the woman die. Don't make this a political battle any more.

Lothar: The doctors have said the woman is braindead. Okay, they were the husband's doctors. The family's doctors are probably going to say something else because of who is paying them the money and who might be encouraging them to say something that isn't necessarily true. At this point, it's all biased.

Posted: **Sat Mar 19, 2005 11:57 pm**

Lothar wrote:Two days ago, you didn't even know who Woodchip was talking about. Are you telling me you've now studied this so deeply that you know for a fact this woman really is braindead?

It's been an issue recently, so people who have already had their opinions made have brought them to the plate with their evidence. I've read a few things here and there.

I haven't heard anyone from where I garner my information say anything to the contrary to what I've said to you.

Posted: **Sun Mar 20, 2005 12:12 am**

For those of you who like reading copy-pasted stuff:

I'm absolutely astounded by the misinformation that is out there. Terri collapsed, due to cardiac arrest. 3 years after her collapse her husband won a malpractice suit with the award being a grand total of $1 million dollars. $700,000 for Terri and $300,000 for the husband. The orginial award was a lot greater, but it was reduced because it was found that Terri was 70% responsible for her own condition. The collapse happened in 1990. In 1998 her husband, after having agressive treatment pursued for Terri for YEARS with no improvement, petitioned the court to remove Terri's feeding tube. Dr.'s had diagnosed her with PVS. The Schindler family disagreed with the husband, so as per the law, the husband as next of kin and guardian of Terri petitioned the court to have a trial to determine Terri's wishes. The trial found that Terri would not want to be kept alive in this manner. Terri's parents testified in court, and under oath that they did not know what Terri wanted, and even if they knew that she would want the feeding tube removed they would not do it. Terri's husband and two of his family members each testified (and were unable to be impeached under cross examination) that at different times, Terri had expressed a desire not to be kept alive by artificial means. The court also based their decison not solely on testimony, but as the court stated, taking into account the person that Terri was, her personality, her previous decision making process.

The case went to the 2nd District Court of Appeals, which found that the trial court had followed the law, and upon review of the case found that the trial court was correct in it's decision, and that they came to the same conclusion as the trial court. The decision of the Trial court was reviewed and affirmed. The Schindlers have petitioned the court for YEARS over a wide range of things, and have lost every single time. For all the screaming by the Schindler family that the husband only wants to get his hands on her money, they forget to mention that they want custody of her, and then they would be heirs to her estate, much like the husband is now. The fail to mention that they demanded money from the husband from the malpractice lawsuit, and when he refused to give it to them, then and only then did they seek to have him removed as guardian. They have changed their story throughout the years, while the husband has consistantly maintained that he is only doing this because he believes it is what Terri wanted. The husband has been offered money time and again and it's always been refused. He offered to "give up" the malpractice award if the Schindlers would just walk away and allow Terri's wishes to be carried out, and they refused. The Schindlers offered to sign over book, tv, & movie deal rights if the husband would give them custody of her. He refused, saying again it wasn't about money or anything other than following Terri's wishes.

TImeline of Events:

February 1990â?¦ Terri suffers cardiac arrest and a severe loss of oxygen to her brain
May 1990â?¦ Terri leaves hospital and is brought to a rehabiliation center for aggressive therapy
July 1990â?¦ Terri is brought to the home where her husband and parents live; after a few weeks, she is brought back to the rehabilitation center
November 1990â?¦ Terri is taken to California for experimental therapies
January 1991â?¦ Terri is returned to Florida and placed at a rehabilitation center in Brandon
July 1991â?¦ Terri is transfered to a skilled nursing facility where she receives aggressive physical therapy and speech therapy
May 1992â?¦ Michael and the Schindlers stop living together
January 1993â?¦ Michael recovers $1 million settlement for medical malpractice claim involving Terri's care; jury had ruled in Michael's favor on allegations Terri's doctors failed to diagnose her bulimia, which led to her heart failure; case settled while on appeal
March 1994â?¦ Terri is transferred to a Largo nursing home
May 1998â?¦ Michael files petition for court to determine whether Terri's feeding tube should be removed; Michael takes position that Terri would chose to remove the tube; Terri's parents take position that Terri would chose not to remove the tube
February 2000â?¦ Following trial, Judge Greer rules that clear and convincing evidence shows Terri would chose not to receive life-prolonging medical care under her current circumstances (i.e., that she would chose to have the tube removed)
April 2000â?¦ Terri is transferred to a Hospice facility
January 2001â?¦ Second District Court of Appeal affirms the trial court's decision regarding Terri's wishes
April 23, 2001â?¦ Florida Supreme Court denies review of the Second District's decision
April 23 or 24, 2001â?¦ Trial court orders feeding tube removed
April 24, 2001â?¦ Terri's feeding tube is removed
April 26, 2001â?¦ Terri's parents file motion asserting they have new evidence regarding Terri's wishes
April 26, 2001â?¦ Trial court denies Terri's parents' motion as untimely
April 26, 2001â?¦ Terri's parents file new legal action against Michael Schiavo and request that the removal of Terri's feeding tube be enjoined; the case is randomly assigned to Judge Quesada
April 26, 2001â?¦ Judge Quesada grants the temporary injunction, orders Terri's feeding tube restored
July 2001â?¦ Second District rules that Judge Greer erred in denying the motion alleging new evidence and, in essence, orders the trial court to consider whether new circumstances make enforcement of the original order inequitable; Second District also reverses the temporary injunction and orders dismissal of much of the new action filed before Judge Quesada
(uncertain)â?¦ Terri's parents detail their reasons why enforcement is inequitable: (1) new witnesses have new information regarding Terri's wishes, and (2) new medical treatment could sufficiently restore Terri's cognitive functioning such that Terri would decide that, under those circumstances, she would continue life-prolonging measures; Terri's parents also move to disqualify Judge Greer
(uncertain)â?¦ Trial court denies both motions as insufficient
October 2001â?¦ Second District affirms the denial of the motion to disqualify and the motion regarding the new witnesses; the appellate court reverses the order with regard to potential new medical treatments and orders a trial on that question with doctors testifying for both sides and a court-appointed independent doctor
March 2002â?¦ Florida Supreme Court denies review of the Second District's decision
October 2002â?¦ Judge Greer holds a trial on the new medical treatment issue, hearing from doctors for both sides and a court-appointed independent doctor; Terri's parents also assert that Terri is not in a persistent vegetative state
Schindlers file emergency motion for relief from judgment based on a 1991 bone scan report indicating Terri's body had previously been subjected to trauma
November 22, 2002â?¦ Following trial, Judge Greer denies Schindlers' motion for relief (new medical evidence motion), rules that no new treatment offers sufficient promise of improving Terri's cognitive functioning and that Terri is, in fact, in a persistent vegetative state
November 22, 2002â?¦ On this same day, Judge Greer denies Schindlers' emergency motion related to the 1991 bone scan
June 2003â?¦ Second District affirms the trial court's decision denying Schindlers' motion for relief from judgment
August 2003â?¦ Florida Supreme Court denies review of the Second District's decision
September 2003â?¦ Terri's parents file federal action challenging Florida's laws on life-prolonging procedures as unconstitutional
October 10, 2003â?¦ Federal court dismisses Schindlers' case
October 15, 2003â?¦ Terri's feeding tube is disconnected
October 20, 2003â?¦ Florida House passes a bill to permit the Governor to issue a stay in cases like Terri's and restore her feeding tube
October 21, 2003â?¦ Federal court rejects injunction request
October 21, 2003â?¦ Florida House and Senate pass a bill known informally as "Terri's Law" to permit the Governor to issue a stay in cases like Terri's and restore her feeding tube ; Governor signs the bill into law and immediately orders a stay; Terri is briefly hospitalized while her feeding tube is restored
October 21, 2003â?¦ Michael brings suit against the Governor, asking to enjoin the Governor's stay on grounds "Terri's Law" is unconstitutional; Judge Baird rejects Michael's request for an immediate injunction, allowing the tube to be restored, and requests briefs on the constitutional arguments involving the new law
November 7, 2003â?¦ Judge Baird rejects Governor's motion to dismiss Michael's suit and have case litigated in Tallahassee
November 20, 2003â?¦ Judge Baird rejects Governor's request for the judge to recuse himself
December 1, 2003â?¦ Guardian ad litem appointed under "Terri's Law" to advise Governor submits report to Governor
December 10, 2003â?¦ Second District rejects Governor's effort to have Judge Baird disqualified
April 2004â?¦ Second District affirms Judge Baird's decision denying Governor's motion to dismiss and have case litigated in Tallahassee
May 2004â?¦ Judge Baird declares "Terri's Law" unconstitutional on numerous grounds
June 2004â?¦ Second District certifies "Terri's Law" case directly to the Florida Supreme Court
July 2004â?¦ Schindlers file new motion for relief from judgment based on Pope John Paul II speech
September 2004â?¦ Florida Supreme Court affirms Judge Baird's ruling that "Terri's Law" is unconstitutional
October 2004â?¦ Judge Greer denies Schindlers' most recent motion for relief from judgment (motion based on Pope John Paul II speech)
December 1, 2004â?¦ Governor asks U.S. Supreme Court to review Florida Supreme Court's decision declaring "Terri's Law" unconstitutional
December 29, 2004â?¦ Second District affirms (without written opinion) Judge Greer's ruling denying Schindlers' most recent motion for relief from judgment
January 6, 2005â?¦ Schindlers file new motion for relief from judgment, alleging Terri never had her own attorney, that the trial court impermissibly applied the law retroactively, and that the original trial on Terri's wishes violated separation of powers principles
January 24, 2005â?¦ U.S. Supreme Court declines review in "Terri's Law" case

February 11, 2005â?¦ Judge Greer denies Schindlers' latest motion for relief from judgment

All court decisions can be found at this site:
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html

The discharge diagnosis from the hospital where she was originally taken is:
Principle Diagnosis:
*Cardiac Arrest

Secondary Diagnosis:
*Anoxic Brain Damage
*Hypopotassemia
*Respiratory Failure
*Pneumonia Due to Staphylococcus
*Effusion of Joint, Lower Legs
*Bacterial Disease
*Staphylococcus Infection in Conditions Classified Elsewhere &/OR Of Unspecified Site

Here is a link to the CAT scan done on Terri in 1996

Her cerebral cortex is gone and has been replaced with spinal fluid. Her brain stem is still functioning and is the cause behind her movements and the noises she makes. It's simple reflexive actions, not cognitive activity.

She's been given 3 separate swallowing tests and each has determined that she is unable to swallow on her own. If someone tried to feed her or give her liquid by mouth, she would most likely aspirate and/or develop pneumonia.

It's my opinion that the parents are less than honest, and have proven that they don't care as much for their daughter as they do for the spotlight of the media. These people went against court orders and took video of their daughter at the hospice facility and has been offering those video clips online, for a donation to their fund, and even went so far as to ask the court to allow the media to be in her room during the death process after the tube is removed. Their claims of abuse have been investigated time and again, and proven to be unfounded.

The person Terri Schiavo was, is gone. Her wishes have been determined in a court of law.

Posted: **Sun Mar 20, 2005 12:29 am**

doesn't being brain dead come with the absence of beta waves? Isn't that the determining factor?

Posted: **Sun Mar 20, 2005 5:54 am**

Good reply Tet. Hopefully it explains to all here that everything that can be done for Terri...has been done.
God rest her soul.

Posted: **Sun Mar 20, 2005 9:40 am**

She may be beyond hope now but I wonder what might have been if her husband had tried to save her>
I think he may have let her die.

From the link:

One former caregiver, Heidi Law, has said under oath that "on three or four occasions I personally fed Terri small mouthfuls of Jell-O, which she was able to swallow and enjoyed immensely."

.......

It is one thing to withdraw a feeding tube; another entirely to withhold that day's meal tray. That is why debating Terri Schiavo as a right-to-die argument misses the point.
The facts are these: Terri Schiavo collapsed in 1990. She has been in hospitals and nursing homes since then. Videotapes depict a young woman who seems to respond to some voice stimuli, but does not communicate. At least three affidavits are on file from former nursing home attendants who insist Terri showed some hope of making progress, but that her husband insisted she be given no rehabilitation.

One nurse, Carla Sauer Iyer, said Terri "spoke on a regular basis, saying such things as 'Mommy' and 'help me.' " Iyer said that when she put a washcloth in Terri's hands to keep her fingers from curling together, "Michael saw it and made me take it out, saying that was therapy."

Posted: **Mon Mar 21, 2005 6:35 am**

The only fact left is that her brain is mush and all the kings men cannot put her back togeather again.

If all the allegations had any merit the courts would have:

1) Charged Terri's husband with a crime.

2) Kept the tubes in.

Posted: **Mon Mar 21, 2005 6:35 pm**

I find it funny that its not ok to starve your dog or your cat to death and that it would be a crime to do so, yet its ok to starve a person to death who may but has not yet been given a chance of therapy for recovery. There are a few cases where people have been in the same condition as Terri, but have eventually recovered.

I've been following this case carefully and I feel the husband is trying to kill her on purpose, especially considering he wants to cremate her immediately after her death. The "Big 3" media has been misreporting this all along and have also suggested their own opinion to the audience to have with their carefully-crafted reporting and word usage. Oversensational my ass, this is someone's life here. Zoop, you should be ashamed of your selfish statement.

Posted: **Mon Mar 21, 2005 6:46 pm**

Top, dogs and cat are euthanised on a regular basis. Some are hale and hearty but no one wants them and others are not so well and put down by responsible owners.

Posted: **Mon Mar 21, 2005 7:45 pm**

Woodchip, I think TopWop is saying even dogs get put down in a much quicker and less painful way than starving them to death.
The thing is though, if she's as gone as Tetrads data shows then she's already gone and their would be no pain regardless of what you do to the shell.

Seeing her kept above room temperature and salivating just so politicians can get some face time like the townspeople of the old west posing for pictures with the bodies of famous gunfighters is disgustingx10

Posted: **Mon Mar 21, 2005 11:52 pm**

The husband has been dealing with this for 15 years. Wouldn't you want to move on with your life after that time?

She's basically an anchor of his past, keeping him tied down to a life that has been over for a decade and a half. I don't know of anyone who would want to subject their spouse to that kind of existance if they were to end up in such a state.

Mommy needs to let go, her daughter grew up, was married and had a life of her own. I don't think this is what she wants for her family at all. Personally no one would want their family fighting over them if something were to happen. Some people just can't move on.

It makes me sick how the media wants to play only one side of the fence hoping the outcry from the public might be some sort of influence (yeah, $$$

). It's amazing how predictably dependable people are sometimes...

Posted: **Tue Mar 22, 2005 12:22 am**

All of the family wants is custody so that they can take care of her, but the husband refuses. Does that strike you as a little odd?

Posted: **Tue Mar 22, 2005 12:51 am**

The family wants to keep her "alive" even though the courts have decided (on two seperate occasions no less) that her wishes were to not be on life support if she were to be in a vegitative state. Don't you find that a little odd?

The husband is trying to carry out her wishes. And I'm sure his own, as he'd like to get on with his life.

DescentBB

Ascension

Ascension