Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Cody Dawg · Jan 25, 2005, 07:48 AM

Read here.

This is the case about the brain-damaged woman Terry Schiavo. She is able to breathe on her own and apparently can respond to some questions by blinking her eyes and apparently has even moved her toes and fingers at different times in response to questions.

However, her husband states that she would not want to live that way and would want to die. Therefore, he wants the feeding tube that feeds her removed so that she can starve to death.

Interesting twist?

He's engaged to another woman and has two children with her.

Her parents have been fighting to keep her alive via the legal system and appeals. However, they have lost their latest legal round and presumably Michael Schiavo now will be able to proceed with ordering that her feeding tube be removed so that she will die.

The parents are now requesting that he walk away - divorce her - and let them take over caring for her. Until this point he has refused.

Should he walk away or proceed with removing the feeding tube so that she starves to death from lack of food and water?

TETENAL · Jan 25, 2005, 07:58 AM

Her parents want to take care of her, so what's the point of insisting on starving her to death? I don't see it.

Cody Dawg · Jan 25, 2005, 08:12 AM

Okay, I was trying to frame the question so that I was somewhat objective.

However, I will go so far as to say, I agree with you TETENAL.

I do not understand why he insists on doing what he says.

Honestly, think about how her parents feel: They love their daughter and want to take care of her and another person is in control of legally killing her.

Personally, I think Michael Schiavo should rot in hell if he proceeds with this.

Millennium · Jan 25, 2005, 08:36 AM

If she can answer questions, then why not leave this decision up to her? I have to say, though, that starving her to death would seem an exceptionally cruel way of killing her.

If we're not sure that she can answer such a question, however, then it is best to leave her in the care of someone willing, such as (in this case) her parents. If we must risk error and one choice is reversible while the other is not, then better to err on the side of reversibility.

BoomStick · Jan 25, 2005, 08:48 AM

How much is it costing us taxpayers to keep her alive?

The family is getting a free ride.

Millennium · Jan 25, 2005, 08:52 AM

Originally posted by BoomStick:
How much is it costing us taxpayers to keep her alive?

That's a good question; how much is it costing them? The article doesn't say. For all we know, this could be completely covered by insurance.

SimeyTheLimey · Jan 25, 2005, 09:05 AM

I'd like to know what the financial consequences to him would be of allowing her to die while they are still married versus divorce.

I don't know Florida law but generally, divorced spouses are cut out from the will (or intestate succession) unless the person making the will says otherwise. If there is any property in her name, he stands to lose it if he divorces her, but he stands to inherit if she dies. Likewise, if there is joint property (for example, a house), there would have to be an accounting and division if he divorces, but if she dies, he gets the lot. Potentially, there could also be life insurance policies that he might not be entitled to if he divorces her, but which might pay out to him if she "happens" to die.

This is all just speculation, of course, but it would go at least some way to explain his bizarre behavior. From what I have read, he apparently denies his wife routine medical and dental care, won't let her parents even visit her. And all the time he insists on remaining married to her, he is seeing another woman who he has engaged to be married to the second the pulse stops on his current wife. That's just not normal behavior, and it is very sad to see the law siding with him.

I can't help wondering also what his kids think of this. Daddy, have you starved Mommy to death yet?

BoomStick · Jan 25, 2005, 09:13 AM

If there is a health insurance policy, it's been long exausted.
If there was a disability policy, it only pays a certain amount per month, thus leaving a certain amount that must be paid by the family per month.

The life insurance policy could be subject to the healthcare company upon her death, thus leaving the husband responsible for any unpid bills once that is exausted.

TETENAL · Jan 25, 2005, 09:15 AM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
From what I have read, he apparently denies his wife routine medical and dental care, [�] That's just not normal behavior, and it is very sad to see the law siding with him.

In Germany this (as well as starving her to death) would be a criminal offence (called "omission of help effort" or something like that). If he's doing it out of greed I wonder whether that isn't even an attempted murder.

SimeyTheLimey · Jan 25, 2005, 09:21 AM

Originally posted by BoomStick:
The life insurance policy could be subject to the healthcare company upon her death, thus leaving the husband responsible for any unpid bills once that is exausted.

Really? I'm no expert on life insurance policies, but I am surprised to hear this.

A life insurance policy is a contract for the benefit of another person. As far as I know, that other person doesn't become the surety for the policy owner just because he recieves a payout. As far as I know, the IRS can't even do that to satisfy unpaid tax bills, so I'd be very surprised to hear that a mere insurance company would have that right.

TETENAL: in this case, the husband isn't doing anything himself. It's all by court order. He is just the guardian.

I also just found out those aren't her kids. He had those kids adulterously by his mistress.

BoomStick · Jan 25, 2005, 09:25 AM

When my father died from cancer, his part of the bills after insurance was $970,000. That was his co-pay and deductables.

Mom had to pay it out of his life insurance.

TETENAL · Jan 25, 2005, 09:25 AM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
TETENAL: in this case, the husband isn't doing anything himself.

And that in Germany is a criminal offence (said "omission of help effort"). Isn't that a crime in the USA? Let's say you see a car accident with injured people and you just drive by without helping, is that legal?

macroy · Jan 25, 2005, 09:28 AM

$20... thats all it takes to prevent this from happening again.

You fill out a form on how you want to be taken care of, have it notarized.. and done.

I've only read what was linked and it really didn't have too much to offer on the details. But perhaps they (the couple) have discussed this, and he is true to his heart and knows that she would not want to 'live' like this. Thus, he is determined to make sure that she does not suffer any longer.

Of course, it could be about the $$ (or something else) which at this point may not much.

Not taking sides... but I do think its a responsibility individuals ought to take to make sure family members are not put in similar situations.

Cody Dawg · Jan 25, 2005, 09:32 AM

Funny you should ask that (about driving by the scene of an accident and failing to render aid.)

I was dating a physician once, an ER trauma physician, and on the way home we saw a car that had smashed into a light pole. We had been to a bar and we'd had a few drinks.

We saw that it had just happened and that the car was smoking. We stopped and we ran over and saw that the person was dazed and had bumped her head but otherwise seemed okay. I asked him what he was going to do and he said, "Nothing. I'm not touching her." I was shocked. I said, "What in the world are you talking about?"

He said, "If I try to help her and something happens - and even if something does not - and she finds out I am a physician she can sue me. The best I can do is to call the police and tell them that she is alert or not alert and that is all. I'm not touching her, especially because I've got alcohol in my blood."

I was pretty disgusted with him and I never went out with him again, though now that I am older and wiser I can see where he was coming from.

Pretty sad.

But, I agree with Millenium: Let her live because it is better to err on the side of conservative caution than to choose the option that is irreversible.

SimeyTheLimey · Jan 25, 2005, 09:32 AM

Originally posted by TETENAL:
And that in Germany is a criminal offence (said "omission of help effort"). Isn't that a crime in the USA? Let's say you see a car accident with injured people and you just drive by without helping, is that legal?

Your driving example is a different situation (but the answer is yes, you have no duty to help -- except I think in Vermont, but even there it wouldn't be a crime).

What I mean here is that all he is doing is asking the courts to order certain things. In a formal sense, it is the courts who are making the decisions and it would be them who will pull the tube. So no, it isn't murder if the courts order it. But it could be murder if he just walked into her room and turned her life support off. That would be a different situation.

Millennium · Jan 25, 2005, 09:33 AM

What I still don't understand is the idea that she can answer questions, but that nobody has asked her about this. One would think that her own current wishes, as communicated by whatever means are available, would be a powerful argument for whichever side was favored, yet neither side is using this to support them. Why?

I have to admit, the man's behavior is also quite bizarre. I suppose that denying routing dental and medical care is one thing -repugnant, but not entirely incomprehensible- but he won't even allow her parents to visit? That I don't understand; what harm could there be in such a thing?

Cody Dawg · Jan 25, 2005, 09:35 AM

The POINT is that he should walk away.

What is the problem with that?

He is ENGAGED (while married) with two kids.

Why not walk away? Why insist that his wife die?

Does anyone know if he is going to get money or something? Or is he doing this for attention?

Either way, he's a killer if he insists on starving her to death when someone will willingly take over her care and he never has to see her again.

TETENAL · Jan 25, 2005, 09:42 AM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Your driving example is a different situation (but the answer is yes, you have no duty to help -- except I think in Vermont, but even there it wouldn't be a crime).

OK. That's sad.

What I mean here is that all he is doing is asking the courts to order certain things. In a formal sense, it is the courts who are making the decisions and it would be them who will pull the tube.

I understood this. But even a judge can commit a crime, and if it would be illegal not to help he would commit a crime. Since you don't have to in the USA, then he can order that of course. I still don't understand why the court would do that though.

SimeyTheLimey · 10:02 AM

Originally posted by BoomStick:
When my father died from cancer, his part of the bills after insurance was $970,000. That was his co-pay and deductables.

Mom had to pay it out of his life insurance.

That was probably because she was already liable for his estate's expenses (which can happen in a number of ways). She would have been liable regardless of the source of her assets. When she got the windfall, she had to pay up.

That's not the same thing as saying that insurance companies have an automatic right to make life insurance beneficiaries pay them their property. Random companies can't come along and take your property to settle other people's bills. As far as I know, not even the IRS can do that.

As always, the above is IMHO and is not a legal opinion.

macroy · Jan 25, 2005, 09:56 AM

Originally posted by Millennium:
What I still don't understand is the idea that she can answer questions, but that nobody has asked her about this. One would think that her own current wishes, as communicated by whatever means are available, would be a powerful argument for whichever side was favored, yet neither side is using this to support them. Why?

I could be wrong...

but I heard on a radio today that she has responded to communications in the past. But its not consistant, not like you can keep asking yes/no questions and have her answer them.

wdlove · Jan 25, 2005, 10:01 AM

IMHO this should have never become a public issue. It should have been a private decision between the family and the physician.

Cody Dawg · Jan 25, 2005, 10:01 AM

But, she responded to SOME. Which makes her a sentient VIABLE human being.

She deserves the benefit of the doubt, in this case, life.

SimeyTheLimey · Jan 25, 2005, 10:03 AM

Originally posted by wdlove:
IMHO this should have never become a public issue. It should have been a private decision between the family and the physician.

That's the problem. She has two families -- her husband, and her parents. They disagree, and so the courts have to decide.

The solution is to get a living will, but she didn't have one.

saddino · Jan 25, 2005, 10:07 AM

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
and apparently can respond to some questions by blinking her eyes and apparently has even moved her toes and fingers at different times in response to questions.

This one sentence fragment is the reason every is asking "why can this guy do this?" and "why hasn't anyone asked her."

Cody, since you are following the case you must know that your statement is misleading.

A number of doctors testified that not only is she in a persistent vegative state and thus her "actions" are merely random (i.e. if you hang around asking her questions long enough you will notice something that convinces you that she's communicating), but -- and IMHO this is a major point because it is what convinced me: a scan of her brain shows that it has completely atrophied. In other words, there is no woman named Terri Schiavo anymore -- only a body that used to be hers. There is no hope for her to return. The body is simply a living shell.

So, the question becomes: given that her husband says Terri did not want to live like this (which we have to take at his word), then why should her parents, Gov. Jeb Bush, the Florida legislature or anyone force the body to be fed and taken care of?

Personally, I -- like Terri -- have told my loved ones that I never want to be kept alive like that.

Regardless, the reason all the courts have sided with her husband is this: he is her guardian, nobody can prove that she didn't ask him to "not let her live like this" and she is most certainly in as definite as a persistent vegitative state as possible.

Cody Dawg · Jan 25, 2005, 10:53 AM

Despite this, she apparently is still able to make eye contact and respond, though in primitive ways, to those in the room. - or is she? There is great controversy over this. Terry's parents (who are fighting to prevent Terry's feeding tube from being removed) illegally made a video tape of Terry that appears to show Terry responding to outside stimulus.

Article here.

Why don't you visit the Terry Schiavo site and see that NO ONE has all of the answers and that she, in fact, smiles at people who visit her or touch her.

Again, better to err on the side of the living.

saddino · Jan 25, 2005, 11:06 AM

Why don't you visit the Terry Schiavo site and see that NO ONE has all of the answers.

C'mon Cody, if you want to discuss her state then that's fine, but don't point me to a site called "terrisfight.org" (which is obviously biased) to find any answers. And calling it "the Terry Schiavo site" is also misleading.

If there was any true chance of Terri being cognizant, then this situation wouldn't have gotten this far. The pictures of her brain are clear. The judges see that. The Supreme Court sees that.

It is sad that she is no longer with us, but wherever she is I'm sure she's looking down and wondering what all the fuss is about.

DeathMan · Jan 25, 2005, 12:38 PM

If I had an agreement with my wife, that if I ever went into such a state, she was to have the plug pulled, and my parents came in and wanted to stop it, saying they knew what was better, I'd be pissed.

BlueSky · Jan 25, 2005, 12:54 PM

I think it would be a nice gesture if we all pitched in and got her some moss for her north side.

Cody Dawg · Jan 25, 2005, 12:59 PM

What does that mean?

Yes, of course her site is biased. I know that.

But, as a parent, I would want to be the one to decide if my own child lives...or dies.

Wouldn't any parent?

Millennium · Jan 25, 2005, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by DeathMan:
If I had an agreement with my wife, that if I ever went into such a state, she was to have the plug pulled, and my parents came in and wanted to stop it, saying they knew what was better, I'd be pissed.

The question is, did she? Without any written confirmation it can't be proven, and something smells decidedly wrong about the way the husband is behaving.

Again, either way we risk being wrong, so I think it's better to err on the side of reversibility. If she lives, and some means of confirming that she didn't want to live comes up later, then she can be taken off of life support, and that will be that. But if she is taken off of life support now, and it is eventually discovered that this isn't what she wanted, what then?

AKcrab · Jan 25, 2005, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by Millennium:
The question is, did she? Without any written confirmation it can't be proven, and something smells decidedly wrong about the way the husband is behaving.

She's been 'vegetative' since 1990. 15 years! If it was my wife, I would want to end the suffering. Living will or no, I know that she does NOT want to "live" like that. Do I have proof? No. Is my saying I would want to end her suffering "wrong"?

What I don't understand is how two loving parents can let their daughter "exist" in such a state. The other tragedy is that the only recourse is to remove the feeding tube. Give her a shot and make it quick and painless like convicted killer on death row? Nope. She gets to starve to death.

Everyone should make a living will.
Euthanasia should be an option.

saddino · Jan 25, 2005, 01:59 PM

Without any written confirmation it can't be proven, and something smells decidedly wrong about the way the husband is behaving.

Something seems fishy to you, but if so, why aren't you puzzled that such instincts aren't shared by the judges in Florida? Or the judges on the Supreme Court?

Do you believe there is some judicial conspiracy to take Terri's body off life support? That they're stubbornlly "missing" something that apparently is so obvious to her parents? That they're easily swayed by "fancy lawyering?"

Or do you believe that the judges, when presented with the facts and in their expert opinion, agree that her wishes -- as recounted by her husband -- be granted after 15 years?

Millennium · 03:33 PM

Originally posted by saddino:
Something seems fishy to you, but if so, why aren't you puzzled that such instincts aren't shared by the judges in Florida? Or the judges on the Supreme Court?

From the statements, it becomes clear that the instincts are shared, but written off as irrelevant. And I suppose they are irrelevant from a legal standpoint. What's not irrelevant is that there is no way to confirm beyond doubt that these are her wishes.

Do you believe there is some judicial conspiracy to take Terri's body off life support?

Conspiracy? No. Just blatant disregard for precedent.

That they're stubbornlly "missing" something that apparently is so obvious to her parents?

Yes, they're missing something: the fact that there is no way to confirm her wishes. Without that, any course of action risks error, and the judicial system has a long tradition of erring on the side of caution. This goes in blatant disregard of that tradition.

Or, to put it another way: when we try a criminal for murder, we insist on proof beyond reasonable doubt. Shouldn't we hold the killing of people who've done no wrong to at least as strict of a standard as that?

Cody Dawg · Jan 25, 2005, 03:40 PM

Or, to put it another way: when we try a criminal for murder, we insist on proof beyond reasonable doubt. Shouldn't we hold the killing of people who've done no wrong to at least as strict of a standard as that?

That is such an awesome point, Millenium.

Huge

AKcrab · Jan 25, 2005, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by Millennium:
Or, to put it another way: when we try a criminal for murder, we insist on proof beyond reasonable doubt. Shouldn't we hold the killing of people who've done no wrong to at least as strict of a standard as that?

You need proof that someone who has been a vegetable for 15 years is unhappy? You all have no problem with someone being in a hospital bed on feeding and breathing machines forever? That's not cruel and unusual?

What you all are calling "killing" I simply see as mercy.

**goes to finally get his living will written up**

ink · Jan 25, 2005, 04:09 PM

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
That is such an awesome point, Millenium.

Huge

So, she's been a vegetable for 13 years now. She has no scientifically verifiable brain activity. How many more until it's "okay"? 13 More? Hey, 26 years in a vegetable state, laying on a bed sounds... fun.

At this point, much of her cerebral cortex is simply gone and has been replaced by cerebral spinal fluid. Medicine cannot cure this condition. Unless an act of God, a true miracle, were to recreate her brain, Theresa will always remain in an unconscious, reflexive state, totally dependent upon others to feed her and care for her most private needs.

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

Would you want to still be alive? Especially if you were still concious and aware of your surroundings, but couldn't do anything? Someone who couldn't care less about you changing your diapers, giving you sponge baths. Unable to do anything you love, much less anything you loathe. I know I wouldn't. If god wanted to save her, she wouldn't be in this state to begin with.

Millennium · Jan 25, 2005, 04:49 PM

Originally posted by AKcrab:
You need proof that someone who has been a vegetable for 15 years is unhappy?

How else am I supposed to know?

You all have no problem with someone being in a hospital bed on feeding and breathing machines forever? That's not cruel and unusual?

I think that's up to the person in said hospital bed to decide.

**goes to finally get his living will written up**

Good for you, leaving proof of your wishes, so that this need not happen to you.

Cody Dawg · Jan 25, 2005, 04:57 PM

She's not on a breathing machine.

She can breathe on her own.

She can smile.

She can follow some movements with her eyes.

She smiles when she is touched.

I find it interesting that we will afford no-kill shelters for dogs and fight to keep convicted murderers off of death-row, but an innocent woman should be deemed unfit to live because of what people pre-suppose.

Millennium · Jan 25, 2005, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by ink:
So, she's been a vegetable for 13 years now. She has no scientifically verifiable brain activity. How many more until it's "okay"?

You speak as though it's a matter of time. It's a matter of finding out what she wants, beyond any reasonable doubt that we might not have determined it accurately. If that never comes, then that is a shame, but it is better than the alternative.

Would you want to still be alive?

Truth be told, I don't know. But either way it's irrelevant, because I am not her, and whatever I believe could very easily be different from what she believes. Similarly, you are not her, and so whether or not you'd want to live in this situation is also irrelevant, except in that it might spur you to take measures such that if such a tragedy were to befall you, your wishes could be verified.

I do not deny that this is a tragedy. I believe that tragedy is only made greater by the inability to prove her wishes beyond reasonable doubt. But the rigorous standards of law must be maintained; they are in place for very good reasons, and all to often we have seen what happens when you start making exceptions.

If god wanted to save her, she wouldn't be in this state to begin with.

You assume my opinion here is based on my religious beliefs. Although I won't deny that my religious beliefs do not conflict with my opinion, they are not the basis for it. The basis for my opinion is based on legal precedent in this kind of case and similar types of cases, and a government that has never once known when to quit.

saddino · Jan 25, 2005, 05:07 PM

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
She can smile.

She can follow some movements with her eyes.

She smiles when she is touched.

I think you meant to say:

She can smile, but in reference to nothing.

After hundreds of tries you might catch her following some movements with her eyes.

She smiles when she is touched in the video clip, but the rest of the four hours of video show her parents unsuccesfully trying to get a response from her.

The courts saw the videos and on the basis of these they realized she is no longer with us. Her brain is gone. Why anyone wants to keep her body alive is beyond me. Luckily, the justices involved in making a legal decision can see clearly on this issue: nobody is "killing" anyone -- the poor woman is already gone.

hagheid · Jan 25, 2005, 06:01 PM

I've been following this for a while. Among the many bizarre aspects of this case, one aspect that alarms me is the apparent lack of 'therapy'. It has been withheld for years now.

From the foundations site:

Q: If Terri hasn't recovered after all these years of therapy, why not let go?

A: Terri hasn't had meaningful therapy since 1991, but many credible physicians say she can benefit from it.

Millennium · Jan 25, 2005, 07:01 PM

The courts saw the videos and on the basis of these they realized she is no longer with us. Her brain is gone. Why anyone wants to keep her body alive is beyond me. Luckily, the justices involved in making a legal decision can see clearly on this issue: nobody is "killing" anyone -- the poor woman is already gone.

Actually, from a legal standpoint she isn't "already gone." If she were, the case would be a lot simpler; in fact it would probably never have even come before a court. However, she doesn't meet any legal definition of death or braindeath, and that is what complicates things.

This is a case of someone who may or may not have a do-not-resuscitate wish -that part is what isn't clear- not someone who is braindead. It really comes down to the question: when there is no living will, do you take the word of a spouse, particularly one who has a severe conflict of interest, or do you deem it inconclusive and continue as before?

It seems to me that if we are to be consistent with the rest of the legal system, there is only one valid way to go: deem it inconclusive. The husband cannot be considered guilty of any crime, of course -reasonable doubt works both ways- but the law doesn't work based on hearsay, and there are good reasons for that. The Bush Administration has been guilty of forgetting this in the face of tragedy, but we must be careful not to do so.