thoughts on the Terry Schiavo case? - NJFBOA - Home of New Jersey's Camaros and Firebirds

skorpion317 · 03-24-2005, 11:03 PM

I'm sure most people have heard about this by now....

Terry Schiavo is a woman down in Florida. in 1990, her heart stopped because of a chemical imbalance brought on by an eating disorder. Her brain was starved for oxygen, and it left her brain-damaged. Since then, she has been on a feeding tube. She can breathe on her own, but requires the feeding tube for nutrition and hydration.

She left no living will. He husband claims that his wife told him she would not want to be kept alive artificially. Her parents contend that not being kept alive would have gone against Terry's deeply Catholic beliefs. They also say it's possible for her to get better.

Court-appointed neurologists say that Schiavo is in a "persistent vegetative state," meaning she has no awareness of what's going on around her. Other neurologists have said she is "minimally conscious," meaning she drifts in and out of awareness constantly, unable to control her consciousness.

The Florida Supreme Court has consistently ruled in favor of Schiavo's husband. Her parents have begged the husband, who now has a girlfriend and several children with her, to divorce their daughter and let them take care of her. Schiavo's husband has repeatedly refused. At stake is a large life insurance claim, which Schiavo's parents say is motivating their daughter's husband to keep custody of her until she dies. Schiavo's husband has denied this allegation and has also accused her parents of the same offense.

This past week, Schiavo's feeding tube was removed by court order. It's been almost a week without food. Doctors say death usually occurs within one to two weeks of the tube being removed.

What are your thoughts on this case?

I think it's more than a little shady that Schiavo's husband refuses to divorce his wife. The life insurance claim (supposedly around a million dollars) is a big factor in my reasoning. With that million dollars, Mr. Schiavo could have a nice life for his new family, among other things. What I don't understand is how the courts consistently ruled in his favor. All he had to go on was an alleged conversation between he and his wife where she said she wouldn't want to be kept alive artifically. There was nothing in writing, only his word.

I feel very bad for her parents. They would like nothing more than to take care of their daughter - just like any parent would. The fact that she may get better gives them hope as well. However, they continually get rebuffed by the courts.

It's sad that something like this can happen. I think the husband is a scumbag. The money is too much to pass up. Why the courts can't see this is beyond me. Only in America....

Savage_Messiah · 03-25-2005, 01:25 AM

**** that. This was a completely personal matter, the courts have NO ****ING RIGHT to interfere in such a personal matter of life and death.

And if anything then I agree with pulling the plug, as she's been in this state for 15 years. She either has no awareness, or her awareness is nothing but pain and desperation. Why torture her keepign her alive - but the government has NO PLACE in this matter, arbitarily deciding her life or death.

Fasterthanyou · 03-25-2005, 06:29 AM

The government isn't deciding her life or death, they're deciding who is best representing her. It's the parents that want life and the husband that wants death.
The argument that the courts have no right is where I strongly disagree. The government is setup to protect those that can not protect themselves. I feel what's taking place is typical and should be allowed to happen. I feel it is wrong but when you make a mistake (not having a will) then you sleep in the last bed you made! In other words her husband is doing what he feels she would want. Is he telling the truth and doing it for the right reasons? I don't know, I don't think anybody knows BUT the parents think he isn't. That's why they've been to court over this and apparently the courts are ruling in his favor. So be it, let her die and let him have his money. Who's to say she didn't want him to be happy with his current girlfriend and children? If it were my spouse I would like to think that I would be happy that they've moved on with their life and benifited finacially from my passing. So there, I say let her die in peace and let the family celibrate her life before the accident! 15 years, my God, I would HOPE somebody would pull the plug on me if I were in her condition for 15 years!!!

foff667 · 03-25-2005, 02:15 PM

first of all i could give a **** less about this...2nd of all like previously stated she had an eating disorder...shes finally getting what she wanted so leave her in piece

Teds89IROC · 03-25-2005, 03:07 PM

I have mixed feelings on it. I've heard that if she passes there is a lot of money going to the husband, but I've also heard his lawyers say he already has gotten the money which most of it has been spent on her bills over the last 15 years. Another thing that has me confused is that the parents want to try and give her therapy to see if there is a chance for her because they beleive she is in the state that this other woman was in..where she was fully aware of what was going on, she just couldn't function and due to her husbands persistence..she is now perfectly fine. I don't understand why the courts wouldn't rule for that..since they are already involved.

~Ted

skorpion317 · 03-25-2005, 03:28 PM

the republicans have been pushing for the courts to "err on the side of life."

it's not a life insurance claim, either. it's the money from a malpractice suit, which is definitely in the millions.

Squirrel · 03-25-2005, 03:28 PM

resist the urge....... ::muffled::

Ian · 03-25-2005, 05:27 PM

The husband is not a scumbag. A scum bag would have pulled the plug on her a while ago to avoid paying all the hospital bills for keeping her alive for 15 years. With that being said, I think what the husband is doing is the right thing. I personally would have asked for the feeding tube to be pulled MUCH sooner than waiting around for 15 years and paying to have someone kept alive. She is brain damaged and cant eat. All she can do is breath. I don't want to sound heartless, but she is useless. If her condition hasnt changed at all in 15 years, give up. I wouldn't blame the guy for wanting the money, he has paid the hospital for keeping her alive for 15 years. that's got to be expensive and I would want to get some money back too. I'm glad they pulled her feeding tube and I wish people wouldn't make such a huge deal about this. It was a personal situation between two parties. Nothing more, nothing less.

ShitOnWheels · 03-25-2005, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ian

The husband is not a scumbag. A scum bag would have pulled the plug on her a while ago to avoid paying all the hospital bills for keeping her alive for 15 years. With that being said, I think what the husband is doing is the right thing. I personally would have asked for the feeding tube to be pulled MUCH sooner than waiting around for 15 years and paying to have someone kept alive. She is brain damaged and cant eat. All she can do is breath. I don't want to sound heartless, but she is useless. If her condition hasnt changed at all in 15 years, give up. I wouldn't blame the guy for wanting the money, he has paid the hospital for keeping her alive for 15 years. that's got to be expensive and I would want to get some money back too. I'm glad they pulled her feeding tube and I wish people wouldn't make such a huge deal about this. It was a personal situation between two parties. Nothing more, nothing less.

Actually, from what I understand, she CAN eat and drink, even though she was on a feeding tube. That is why some of the protestors have tried to bring bread and water to her in the hospice.

matt98ls1 · 03-25-2005, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ****OnWheels

Actually, from what I understand, she CAN eat and drink, even though she was on a feeding tube. That is why some of the protestors have tried to bring bread and water to her in the hospice.

She can only gain nourishment through her feeding tube. Those smuggling bread are wasting their time since she is not able to eat and chew.

And for those that don't know, she has the mental capacity of a 6-month old child. No chance of recovery, rehabilitation has been ruled out, so she will be in a vegetative state for the rest of her life. The initial court case granted guardianship to the husband, and yes, he has spent much of the money paying for the bills for the past 15 years.
He has moved on, has a present girlfriend, and refuses to divorce Terry because he knows that her parents will attempt to keep her alive if they have custody, which would be against what Terry wants. He's trying to follow with her original wishes, which her parents are blind and ignorant to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ian

I personally would have asked for the feeding tube to be pulled MUCH sooner than waiting around for 15 years and paying to have someone kept alive.

If you aren't familiar with the case, maybe you should read up on it. This is in fact, the 3rd time the feeding tube has been removed. Appeals from the parents, and the ******* Jeb Bush have attempted to prolong her life in the past. Jeb rushed a bill through the FL law system to keep her alive, which the Supreme Court ruled was unconstitutional. The husband is trying his best to end her suffering, however, its been a long road for all of them.

Bottom Line....
MAKE SURE YOU HAVE A LIVING WILL. All terry needed was a short document, signed, notarized, and none of this ever would have taken place. It's good to make your wishes known to loved ones in this case, but it doesn't mean **** unless its signed and official.

Koll · 03-25-2005, 06:55 PM

Christ, Shes been a vegtable for 15 years.....

I think my point is clear.

Edit: Joke time. (not really appropriate, but funny)

Whats the hardest part on a vegtable?
....
....
....
....
The Wheelchair *rimshot*

Ian · 03-25-2005, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by matt98ls1

If you aren't familiar with the case, maybe you should read up on it. Â*This is in fact, the 3rd time the feeding tube has been removed. Â*Appeals from the parents, and the ******* Jeb Bush have attempted to prolong her life in the past. Â*Jeb rushed a bill through the FL law system to keep her alive, which the Supreme Court ruled was unconstitutional. Â* The husband is trying his best to end her suffering, however, its been a long road for all of them.

Sorry, I was unaware.

maroman88 · 03-25-2005, 08:42 PM

since the feeding tube was pulled out they should just put her to sleep like an animal rather then starving her to death and no court action is needed

Koll · 03-25-2005, 08:57 PM

HERE IS MINE, MICHAEL KOLL's LIVING WILL.

If I am ever a vegtable. Just hook me up to a lethal injection.

CrAsH · 03-25-2005, 11:01 PM

i wouldnt wanna be a burdin unless i was 75%+ chance of me recovering

ShitOnWheels · 03-25-2005, 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by matt98ls1

Quote:

Originally Posted by ****OnWheels

Actually, from what I understand, she CAN eat and drink, even though she was on a feeding tube. Â*That is why some of the protestors have tried to bring bread and water to her in the hospice.

She can only gain nourishment through her feeding tube. Â*Those smuggling bread are wasting their time since she is not able to eat and chew. Â*

And for those that don't know, she has the mental capacity of a 6-month old child. Â*No chance of recovery, rehabilitation has been ruled out, so she will be in a vegetative state for the rest of her life. Â* The initial court case granted guardianship to the husband, and yes, he has spent much of the money paying for the bills for the past 15 years. Â*
He has moved on, has a present girlfriend, and refuses to divorce Terry because he knows that her parents will attempt to keep her alive if they have custody, which would be against what Terry wants. Â*He's trying to follow with her original wishes, which her parents are blind and ignorant to. Â*

Because she cannot feed herself, she has been receiving nourishment from her tube. But from other accounts, she has had food through her mouth (jell-o). She can chew and swallow, but because she is incapable of feeding herself, they used the tube.

matt98ls1 · 03-26-2005, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ****OnWheels

Because she cannot feed herself, she has been receiving nourishment from her tube. But from other accounts, she has had food through her mouth (jell-o). She can chew and swallow, but because she is incapable of feeding herself, they used the tube.

The only reason I said that was because of the cnn.com article I read.

Quote:

Four people, including right-wing leader James Gordon "Bo" Gritz, were arrested on misdemeanor trespassing charges when they attempted to bring Ms. Schiavo bread and water, which she would be unable to consume.

Not sure how limited she is to food, but they reported that she would not be able to consume the bread that protestors were trying to smuggle in to her.

Trans Am Chick · 03-26-2005, 09:52 AM

what i think is completelly revolting is that terry can eat and at the best she should be comferted in her last days. the husband got a restraining order against the parents because he caught the mother trying to put lip gloss on because terry was so dehydrated. that is going to far. im not sure i agree completelly with them taking the feeding tube out. but i can understand her husbands pov. they dont need to go the to the extreme to keep her alive but at the same time i cannot believe he ordered for her to not be fed at all or to be able to have water or ice chips. nothing. thats horrible. and thats y i think the husband is a scumbag. not to mention... hes still married to her wtf is he doing with another woman. call me old fashioned. but thats wrong. if she cannot survive on her own without medical help, then yes she should be let go. but that doesnt mean that they can deny her sustinence until she reaches that point.

ShitOnWheels · 03-26-2005, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trans Am Chick

what i think is completelly revolting is that terry can eat and at the best she should be comferted in her last days. the husband got a restraining order against the parents because he caught the mother trying to put lip gloss on because terry was so dehydrated. that is going to far. im not sure i agree completelly with them taking the feeding tube out. but i can understand her husbands pov. they dont need to go the to the extreme to keep her alive but at the same time i cannot believe he ordered for her to not be fed at all or to be able to have water or ice chips. nothing. thats horrible. and thats y i think the husband is a scumbag. Â*not to mention... hes still married to her wtf is he doing with another woman. call me old fashioned. but thats wrong. if she cannot survive on her own without medical help, then yes she should be let go. but that doesnt mean that they can deny her sustinence until she reaches that point.

Well, how does one let her go when the feeding tube was the only thing keeping her alive? She can breathe on her own, and her heart beats on its own, so pulling a respirator isn't an option. And since euthanasia is illegal, can't give her a lethal injection. So the only real way is to take the tube out. It probably could be considred uncruel punishment or undue pain and sufferring, but it really is the only option.

camaro2you · 03-26-2005, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foff667

first of all i could give a **** less about this...2nd of all like previously stated she had an eating disorder...shes finally getting what she wanted so leave her in piece

thats what i was thinking to myself

jims69camaro · 03-26-2005, 12:11 PM

this is why a living will is so important. it speaks for you when you are unable, expressing your wishes when you are in a situation like this.

Trans Am Chick · 03-26-2005, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ****OnWheels

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trans Am Chick

what i think is completelly revolting is that terry can eat and at the best she should be comferted in her last days. the husband got a restraining order against the parents because he caught the mother trying to put <a style='text-decoration: none; border-bottom: 3px double;' href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=22&k=lip%20gloss" onmouseover="window.status='lip gloss'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;">lip gloss</a> on because terry was so dehydrated. that is going to far. im not sure i agree completelly with them taking the feeding tube out. but i can understand her husbands pov. they dont need to go the to the extreme to keep her alive but at the same time i cannot believe he ordered for her to not be fed at all or to be able to have water or ice chips. nothing. thats horrible. and thats y i think the husband is a scumbag. Â*not to mention... hes still married to her wtf is he doing with another woman. call me old fashioned. but thats wrong. if she cannot survive on her own without medical help, then yes she should be let go. but that doesnt mean that they can deny her sustinence until she reaches that point.

Well, how does one let her go when the feeding tube was the only thing keeping her alive? Â*She can breathe on her own, and her heart beats on its own, so pulling a respirator isn't an option. Â*And since euthanasia is illegal, can't give her a lethal injection. Â*So the only real way is to take the tube out. Â*It probably could be considred uncruel punishment or undue pain and sufferring, but it really is the only option.

like i said i havent decided if i agree with them taking the feeding tube out or not. but i definatelly disagree with them denying any type of food and water. i understand she cannot feed herself and im sure that she cant chew but denying anything inclunding chapstick? thats insane.

Ian · 03-26-2005, 12:56 PM

The way I see it, she has been dead for 15 years. There is zero chance of recovery and she is taking up valuable hospital space. I'm all for having the tube pulled.

Fasterthanyou · 03-26-2005, 06:17 PM

What's insane about all this is that euthanasia is illegal. I'd rather be euthanized than go through hell for 15 years only to then be left to die with my family being the ones starving me. Suposedly (doctors lie about things like this all the time) dehydration death isn't painful for somebody in her condition... I say bs but I'm not a doctor so I don't know.

Savage_Messiah · 03-26-2005, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trans Am Chick

what i think is completelly revolting is that terry can eat and at the best she should be comferted in her last days. the husband got a restraining order against the parents because he caught the mother trying to put lip gloss on because terry was so dehydrated. that is going to far. im not sure i agree completelly with them taking the feeding tube out. but i can understand her husbands pov. they dont need to go the to the extreme to keep her alive but at the same time i cannot believe he ordered for her to not be fed at all or to be able to have water or ice chips. nothing. thats horrible. and thats y i think the husband is a scumbag. Â*not to mention... hes still married to her wtf is he doing with another woman. call me old fashioned. but thats wrong. if she cannot survive on her own without medical help, then yes she should be let go. but that doesnt mean that they can deny her sustinence until she reaches that point.

Horrible is keepign her alive. if she does drift in and out of consciousness liek they say, you think its comfortable having a feeding tube shoved down your throat?

being in a hospital bed for the rest of your "life"?

being basically kept alive deaD?