Terri Schindler-Schiavo

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-10-20 09:06pm

Six days have passed since her feeding tube was removed by request of her husband. Her parents have filed for an injunction to keep her alive.

Where do you stand on the issue?

Sir Sirius · Post by **Sir Sirius** » 2003-10-20 09:13pm

I sure as hell would't like to live like that.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-10-20 09:15pm

It depends. Did she specifically request being taken off life support at some point before her accident?

darthdavid · Post by **darthdavid** » 2003-10-20 10:16pm

They should've killed her outright. Atleast thatway she wouldn't've died a horable death by suffocating on her own swollen toung.

GrandMasterTerwynn · Post by **GrandMasterTerwynn** » 2003-10-20 10:58pm

Hamel wrote:Six days have passed since her feeding tube was removed by request of her husband. Her parents have filed for an injunction to keep her alive.

Where do you stand on the issue?

Perusing the articles makes it clear that the woman is a vegetable with no higher brain function beyond simple reflexes. This probably should've been done years ago.

Seggybop · Post by **Seggybop** » 2003-10-20 11:14pm

Starving someone isn't a legitimate thing to do in any case.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-10-20 11:20pm

Seggybop wrote:Starving someone isn't a legitimate thing to do in any case.

I imagine that's the only way to get the job done since it's the norm to freak out about euthanasia.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-10-20 11:33pm

I heard about this a while ago, and the first thing that came to my mind was, "These sick bastards...WTF are they thinking, starving the woman?"

I mean, she IS able to function on her own, other than the feeding tube (no breathing tubes, no heart assistance, etc.). Is she in a coma or just in a vegetative state? Anyways, no matter what the state, I would think that she would still be able to feel pain, and it is just sick to try to starve someone.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-10-21 12:05am

If I was in a vegetative state with no hope of recovery I would want to be allowed to die and if I hadn't made provisions for that to happen I would trust my significant other far more than any other person (in this rather morbid hypothetical) to make the right decision, even--no, definitely more than my parents. Multiple doctors have provided opinions and it's clear she's not feeling any pain for this--she's not feeling anything at all, now.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-10-21 01:05am

So far as a human being is concerned, she's already dead. Her heart and CNS refuses to follow.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-10-21 02:52am

She's dead, for all intents and purposes. Everything that made her who she is is gone. Better to give her the dignity of a coffin and a tombstone than spending years growing old in a hospital. It would be cleaner just to inject her with an overdose of sodium thiopental, but since euthanasia is illegal, this is the best solution available.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2003-10-21 05:30am

So far as a human being is concerned, she's already dead. Her heart and CNS refuses to follow

If someone is already dead how can their heart and CNS continue to function ?

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2003-10-21 05:42am

wha...?

Details?

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2003-10-21 10:47am

People are allowed to die in what may seem like rather gruesome ways all the time in US Hospitals, mostly because euthenasia is still illegal.

I can't say that starvation is a common but I have known it to happen or at least be planned. In my experience when they remove support it usually doesn't take that long but in this woman's case the only support I've heard about is that she was being tube fed.

Often in other cases the person is on a ventalator so when that is stopped they either start breathing on their own or suffocate.

In the Hospice attached to my hospital they have rather strict rules as to what kind of support they will provide. In most cases they won't even put people on IVs and if they can't eat/drink on their own they usually will weaken and die, often by what could be considered dehydration.

Post by **LadyTevar** » 2003-10-21 06:43pm

When my father had his fatal stroke (to the brainstem itself), he was placed on life support for a week, pending two CAT scans to check for brain activity. The life support was necessary because the stroke had affected the automatic functions of the brainstem: breathing, heartbeat, etc.
Despite this, if you tickled his feet they'd jerk slightly, and sometimes his fingers would move, although the first (and later second) CAT scans showed no higher functioning.

It was heartbreaking, but how could we let Dad live on life support? This was the man that every morning walked outside and exlcaimed to the sky "Good Morning World!" Dad was always active, out driving, or out in the woods hunting or just walking. Life support could keep him going for years... but why? I'd rather remember Dad pulling up in front of the house in his truck, then getting out just in time to catch his silly daughter in a heartfelt hug.

I fully believe it's better to let someone go than keep them in that state. And if I'm ever in that position, I hope that SirNitram would have the strength and courage to let me go, as well.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-10-21 06:52pm

Although, frankly, my will is going to state very clearly that, if I ever go into a coma with most of my brain intact, I wish to be kept alive for as long as is possible. Remember the article about the man who went into a coma in the 80's and recently woke up?

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-10-21 07:19pm

http://rr-bb.co m/showthread.php?s=&threadid=113257

Following this with some interest. Any truth to what these folks are saying?

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2003-10-21 07:33pm

HemlockGrey wrote:http://rr-bb.co m/showthread.php?s=&threadid=113257

Following this with some interest. Any truth to what these folks are saying?

I'm curious to know as well. It's very easy to know if someone's brain dead, and it's hard for me to believe that even rabid fundies would outright lie about that issue.

Sir Sirius · Post by **Sir Sirius** » 2003-10-21 08:04pm

Colonel Olrik wrote:I'm curious to know as well. It's very easy to know if someone's brain dead, and it's hard for me to believe that even rabid fundies would outright lie about that issue.

She's not brain dead if that is what you mean. A drooling zombie might be a more accurate description of her state.

Seggybop · Post by **Seggybop** » 2003-10-21 11:37pm

In the future, there may be methods created to restore the higher brain function to people currently lacking it, assuming their brains haven't been totally obliterated. Allowing them to die now erases any hope that they can be revived.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-10-22 02:05am

It doesn't matter now. Governor Bush has been granted the power by the Florida state legislature to overturn the ruling, and has done so. Apparently, she wasn't brain dead the way I thought she was, and that's where the controversy comes in.

CNN link

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2003-10-22 07:13am

I dunno, the husband says (I'm not sure if there was an explicit will) that she preferred to be taken off life support. That she didn't want to live that way.

Personally, I think that starvation and dehydration is just cruel. Surely some kind of exception can be made in this case for euthanasia, this is getting re-goddamned-diculous- Husband's going to the supreme court, parents say "Go right ahead" you got people on the left fighting about it, people on the right fighiting over it....who, by the way, wouldn't even give a shit if it wasn't on goddamned CNN every damned day. ugh. just goes to show you what media coverage can do to an issue.

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2003-10-22 07:22am

Can someone explain the situation to me?
More specifically, how did she come to be brain damaged?

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2003-10-22 07:56am

apparently, she had a heart attack and went into a coma.
But according to this article (The reliability of it, i'm not sure gives a rather interesting take on it...)

http://www.ragged-edge-mag.com/1102/1102ft1.html

Reedy reedy.

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2003-10-22 08:23am

I've been reading a lot of rather biased stuff on the 'net about this case (never heard of her before I saw this thread), and while I agree with the sentiments expressed here ^^ if these sites are true in what they say abou the level of brain activity she has and the neglect her husband appears to have shown, then I think he should not have custody over her.

But as I said, these sites are biased. Does anyone have any info on the other side of the story?

(P.S. I'm not letting my political agenda interfere with my assessment of the case - I'm pro euthanasia.)

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Terri Schindler-Schiavo

The time has come for your answer

Terri Schindler-Schiavo

Re: Terri Schindler-Schiavo