[goMac]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
Who honestly thinks that STARVING a loved one is humane? Seriously?

As I've pointed out before STARVING IS THE ONLY LEGAL WAY. Wanna get a law passed that says they can use lethal injection? Be my guest.

And chewing and swallowing goes with higher brain functions. If she could chew and swallow, we wouldn't be in this position, now would we?

[SSharon]

Well I am very late to this thread, but I want to add some of my thoughts to it.

First off, she is not being starved to death in a cruel way. My grandmother died just over a month ago and for the last week of her life she was put on hospice care. Hospice care = no IV fluids, no meds (except pain killer and O2), and no food of any kind. I can assure you she died with dignity. I understand that to many she starved to death, but she was about to die and keeping her alive artificially would have been a cruel thing to do.

In this case I think its obviously more complicated. I understand why people have DNR's, but I find it extremely difficult to follow them (as an EMT). I think the feeding tube should have been left in. Now that its out, I do not think it should be reinserted. I also heard that Michael was offered money by Terri's parents if he would let her live so perhaps there is more to his decision than money.

I also think its acceptable for him to move on in his own life considering her state. I do not approve of his affair though.

The bottom line is that its the media that wants money and attention not Terri's family and its clear how well they are doing. This is a private matter that should not be on the news at all. In fact I would go out of my way to watch any channel that said from now on we are no longer mentioning Terri's name.


Also, can I get in on the bstone vs. Rabbi action?

[Mithras]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
Who honestly thinks that STARVING a loved one is humane? Seriously?

I honestly don't know why I punish myself in this way, but just for kicks I'll take one more stab at clearing up some of the gross misunderstandings implied by this question.

read:

The battle over Terri Schiavo is about life and death, but it is also a war of words - and one of the words most at issue is "starvation."

Ms. Schiavo's parents have repeatedly used the word, as have politicians like the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist of Tennessee.

Commentators have compared Ms. Schiavo's situation to that of starving children in Africa and abandoned animals in shelters.

That kind of language disturbs Dr. Douglas Nelson, a geriatrician in Hickory, N.C. "That is a gross medical error," Dr. Nelson said.

He argues that when a feeding tube is removed, death is caused by dehydration, not loss of nutrition. And despite the emotionally charged language, many doctors say that patients in a persistent vegetative state, like Ms. Schiavo, feel no discomfort when the flow of nutrients through a feeding tube stops.

Continued:

Withdrawal of nutrition is a common method for ending life, and many terminally ill patients choose that course, Dr. Morrison said.

"I have never had a patient who has stopped eating and drinking who has expressed that they are hungry," he added.

Conscious patients report discomfort from dehydration, doctors say, so they combat symptoms with lip balms, humidifiers, and ice chips or mouth swabs to prevent dry mouth.
...
In the case of Ms. Schiavo, experts say, the potential for discomfort is nonexistent because higher functions like consciousness and the ability to sense pain were destroyed 15 years ago when she suffered the loss of oxygen to her brain.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally posted by undotwa:
Don't you think that being Catholic is incompatible with being pro-choice, pro gay marriage and some aspects of women's rights?

I am Catholic, I'm ambivalent on the pro-choice issue so I go with the Holy See on that. I am very much opposed to gay marriage. I am all for women's rights, and beside the abortion issue I don't see how being Catholic is incompatible with that.

[Mithras]

Originally posted by SSharon:
Well I am very late to this thread, but I want to add some of my thoughts to it.

Sorry about your grandmother SSharon, and thanks for your thoughts. This is a tough and deeply personal situation, and I agree that it's tragic that it's been splattered across our television screens this way.

On a personal note, we just found out on the telephone that my wife's mother, who is an immigrant and tends to fall for the latest child-in-a-well sob story on cable television, has been deeply disturbed by the Schiavo case, and indeed is convinced she is being cruely starved while able to carry on conversations. She has a lot of fear of medical care and illness as it is, so my wife -- who feels about Schiavo the way I do -- was quite concerned to hear about this. Presumably it means that her mom would not want to be unplugged under any circumstance, though of course she has nothing in writing. So I'm going to be urging everyone in the family to get things in writing ASAP, lest some tragic situation befall the family someday.

[SSharon]

Originally posted by Mithras:
Sorry about your grandmother SSharon, and thanks for your thoughts.

Thank you.

I really agree with the post about the word starvation being used improperly. I read the packet from the hospice nurse, I spoke with the doctors, and as the quote explains people use wet swabs to moisten dry lips but thats about it.

This is not being starved to death, this is dignity. My grandmother survived the Holocaust and died with all of her children and grandchildren in the room with her. She died with dignity, even if technically she was dehydrated to death. For those of you from Chicago you may remember this front page article that was in the Chicago Tribune that was about her. Here's a link to the article.

[spacefreak]

So now the word is that people in PVS feel no pain, and do not experience any discomfort, hence starvation is a peaceful event. If that's the case, then I really don't see what the harm is in letting her family take care of her.

Man, this has to be the most morally and legally confusing cases I have ever heard of. I guess that's why it's getting so much media time, and why so many feel so strongly one way or another. And it's all fueled by the fact that the family and husband want completely different things for Terri. There are other similar cases that happen, but they seem to get resolved by the interested parties on their own. Some families keep their loved ones alive while others decide to pull the tubes.

I'll say another thing, her family is a tough one to crack. They are still fighting this with all they have. You'd think exhaustion would set in at some point, but they seem to be getting their energy and focus from somewhere. The father, mother, brother, sister... they're all working the courts, media and monitoring Terri at the same time. Amazing.

[ironknee]

is she still alive? change the station, marge...

[bstone]

Originally posted by SSharon:



Also, can I get in on the bstone vs. Rabbi action?

Dear Shaya,
No.

Sincerely,
Baruch



p.s. ssharon and i are friends "in real life".

[SVass]

Originally posted by Weyland-Yutani:
I am Catholic, I'm ambivalent on the pro-choice issue so I go with the Holy See on that. I am very much opposed to gay marriage. I am all for women's rights, and beside the abortion issue I don't see how being Catholic is incompatible with that.

Marriage is a religious rite. According to my understanding of the Catholic Church, civil marriage does not exist and in some areas in the past, they would not even recognize a Jewish marriage. So, Roman Catholics should NOT care what kind of rules apply to a civil marriage. sam

[deej5871]

Originally posted by ironknee:
ok...i'll try

i - don't - be - lieve - in - in - vis - i - ble - peo - ple - who - live - in - the - clouds.

your turn.

Sorry, I guess I should've taken your post at face value. I assumed you must have been implying something with your statement, because why else would any intelligent person make such a random statement if it had nothing to do with the topic at hand? Anyway, I was apparently mistaken, and I too, do not believe in invisible people who live in the clouds.

Good day.

[goMac]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
If that's the case, then I really don't see what the harm is in letting her family take care of her.

Because it isn't what Terri wants (wanted)?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
So now the word is that people in PVS feel no pain, and do not experience any discomfort, hence starvation is a peaceful event. If that's the case, then I really don't see what the harm is in letting her family take care of her.

I agree, this is the most difficult part to decide on. On one hand, survivors could get an emotional benefit from having the body alive as a prop to help them pretend she's not dead, and on the other hand, survivors would get an emotional benefit from having the body put to rest in a proper funeral and having closure on the unfortunate loss of a family member. In my mind these opposing emotional benefits cancel each other out, and we are left with the tie-breakers that (a) as a medical certainly her brain is no longer functional in a human sense and there is no hope for recovery, and (b) the court system has repeatedly found after weighing all the evidence it was Terri's wish to not be artificially sustained in such a state of living death.

I'll say another thing, her family is a tough one to crack. They are still fighting this with all they have. You'd think exhaustion would set in at some point, but they seem to be getting their energy and focus from somewhere. The father, mother, brother, sister... they're all working the courts, media and monitoring Terri at the same time. Amazing.

I think they have a bunch of stand-ins and understudies to take over while they rest up. Or robots. I really can't get excited one way or the other for people that would whore out their family member in the media this way. They're all despicable and I ignore them, and I certainly don't think we as a society should let their behavior influence how we feel about the case. Bravo to the supreme court(s) for not getting swayed by them.

[saddino]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
If that's the case, then I really don't see what the harm is in letting her family take care of her.

The harm is to Terri's wishes.

Believing that Michael Schiavo is in the right requires three things:
1) Believing that Terri did not want to live this way.
2) Believing that Terri is PVS and hence cannot be rehabilitated.
3) Believing that Michael Schiavo, as Terri's legal guardian, is allowed to make this decision for her.

The courts have ruled on all three points in Michael's favor. IMO, the only area open to rational discussion is whether the courts ruled incorrectly one one or more of these points. Those who have read the rulings are certainly in a position to argue the state of Florida is wrong.

However, many people here would rather invent other reasons (e.g. Michael Schiavo is a murderer), but those fantasies are impossible to quash, as they are based on emotional "hunches" and "assumptions."

And so the thread continues.

[ironknee]

Originally posted by deej5871:
Sorry, I guess I should've taken your post at face value. I assumed you must have been implying something with your statement, because why else would any intelligent person make such a random statement if it had nothing to do with the topic at hand? Anyway, I was apparently mistaken, and I too, do not believe in invisible people who live in the clouds.

Good day.

ummm so are you going to scold me or are u saying you agree with what i implied?

nothing to do with the topic? are u nuts? half of the fundies' argument are based on a belief of an invisible god who lives in the clouds.

[deej5871]

Originally posted by ironknee:
ummm so are you going to scold me or are u saying you agree with what i implied?

nothing to do with the topic? are u nuts? half of the fundies' argument are based on a belief of an invisible god who lives in the clouds.

Oh, so you meant you don't believe in God. Well, since you didn't explain that I had to assume you didn't imply anything.

I'll refer you to the argument Captain Obvious was making as to why this has nothing to do with religion.

As for me, I won't "scold" you for it. I'm just a little offended that you would say "at least" you don't believe in God, as though it were a bad thing.

[ironknee]

Originally posted by deej5871:
Oh, so you meant you don't believe in God. Well, since you didn't explain that I had to assume you didn't imply anything.

I'll refer you to the argument Captain Obvious was making as to why this has nothing to do with religion.

As for me, I won't "scold" you for it. I'm just a little offended that you would say "at least" you don't believe in God, as though it were a bad thing.

frankly, i'm not sure what side anyone is on anymore...for me god is a metaphor...

would it make a difference if i didn't say at least? anyways let's move on

[Cody Dawg]

Another description of this particular American way of dying is described by Justice Lynch of the Massachusetts Supreme Court in the case of firefighter Paul Brophy, who lapsed into coma after surgery. Removal of his G-tube led to his death eight days later, thanks in no small part to the efforts of (bioethicist) death squad professional Dr. Ronald Cranford.

In his dissent from the court majority approval of Brophy's death in this manner, Justice Lynch states: "the [likely] various effects from the lack of hydration and nutrition" as follows:

"Brophy's mouth would dry out and become caked or coated with thick material. His lips would become parched and cracked. His tongue would swell, and might crack. His eyes would recede back into their orbits and his cheeks would become hollow. The lining of his nose might crack and cause his nose to bleed. His skin would hang loose on his body and become dry and scaly. His urine would become highly concentrated, leading to burning of the bladder. The lining of his stomach would dry out and he would experience dry heaves and vomiting. His body temperature would become very high. His brain cells would dry out, and the thick secretions that would result could plug his lungs and cause death. At some point within five days to three weeks his major organs, including his lungs, heart, and brain, would give out and he would die." (Brophy v. New England Sinai Hospital, No. 85E0009-G1,10/21/85:28-2]

When he began having seizures, anticonvulsant medication was administered via the tube, as were antacids to prevent hemorrhaging and laxatives to make him more "comfortable" as he died.[

The inconvenient facts are that food and water are NOT medical treatment. They are not therapeutic nor do they treat diseases. They are a necessity for life. In Terri Schiavo's case, as in all others with the exception of those who can't hold food down, it is nothing less than legalized murder. It is a cruel and inhumane way to die enshrined by our legal, medical and "ethical" community.

This is the beginning of state-sanctioned "legal" euthanasia, in my opinion. In this country, beginning with this case, it will now become de rigeur to kill off people using starvation and dehydration because this country is still so Puritan that it will not allow using drugs - drugs are saved for the worst of the worst criminals so that they can die with no pain.

Additionally, this method of killing someone off does not even meet the criteria requirements of the Netherlands - which advocates and has legalized euthanasia. Those criteria include:

Due care requirements

The due care criteria which must be met in order to obtain exemption from criminal liability require that the attending physician:

* be satisfied that the patient has made a voluntary and well considered request
* be satisfied that the patient's suffering is unbearable, and that there is no prospect of improvement
* has informed the patient about his or her situation and prospects
* has come to the conclusion, together with the patient, that there is no reasonable alternative in the light of the patient's situation
* has consulted at least one other physician, who must have seen the patient and given a written opinion on the due care criteria referred to above, and
* has terminated the patient's life or provided assistance with suicide with due medical care and attention.

NONE of the requirements are met in Terri Schiavo's instance and guess what? In the Netherlands which has legalized euthanasia ALL SIX CRITERIA MUST BE MET OR EUTHANASIA IS NOT PERMITTED.

So, Terri Schiavo is now suffering what most right-minded individuals consider an inhumane and grisly and uncomfortable death - in one of the supposedly most compassionate and progressive countries in the world.

It is truly unbelievable.

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
It is truly unbelievable.

Prove she is uncomfortable.

[grayware]

Insane! From cnn.com minutes ago:

"A state court judge said he would rule by noon Saturday on a motion to give Terri Schiavo minimal fluids until new information on the brain-damaged woman's responsiveness is examined. The motion contends her family heard her try to verbalize "I want to live."

Uh huh. That, and "Where's the remote? Spongebob is on next."

I'm sorry, but as much as her family loves her and wants to maintain her minimal, primitive existence, they're CRACKERS! Now they're grasping at straws.

[Cody Dawg]

They may be crackers. Wouldn't you be if one of the people that you loved dearly was being extinguished in front of your very eyes?

I mean, I probably would be. I think the Schindlers are behaving admirably under the circumstances. I'm not so sure my conduct would be as good.

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
They may be crackers. Wouldn't you be if one of the people that you loved dearly was being extinguished in front of your very eyes?

I mean, I probably would be. I think the Schindlers are behaving admirably under the circumstances. I'm not so sure my conduct would be as good.

Admirable crackers indeed.

[saddino]

Originally implied by Cody Dawg:
So, Terri Schiavo is now suffering what most religiously fanatical right-minded individuals consider an inhumane and grisly and uncomfortable death - in one of the supposedly most compassionate and progressive countries in the world.

Fixed.

[SimpleLife]

woaw.

dbl pst.

srry.

[nredman]

Originally posted by grayware:
Insane! From cnn.com minutes ago:

"A state court judge said he would rule by noon Saturday on a motion to give Terri Schiavo minimal fluids until new information on the brain-damaged woman's responsiveness is examined. The motion contends her family heard her try to verbalize "I want to live."

Uh huh. That, and "Where's the remote? Spongebob is on next."

I'm sorry, but as much as her family loves her and wants to maintain her minimal, primitive existence, they're CRACKERS! Now they're grasping at straws.

haha spongebob i feel sorry for terri's parents - all they want is for her to live. i really don't know which side to roll with...i am just sick of hearing about it.

[zerostar]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
Wouldn't you be if one of the people that you loved dearly was being extinguished in front of your very eyes?

I have been in this situation several times, it is a tough decision and we, the loved ones, made the decision. There was medial examinations (same as this case) and we had to come to the conclusion it was over.

The worst thing is dragging the end of this woman's life out on national TV and bringing religion in to it when the woman was not even in a practicing religion for most of her life. They are pushing their thinking and beliefs that she is "alive" on to all of us.

It is sad and disgusting and they should leave the poor girl alone.

[grayware]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
They may be crackers. Wouldn't you be if one of the people that you loved dearly was being extinguished in front of your very eyes?

In the midst of it, it's very emotional, but after the person is gone, you know you did the right thing. My brother suffered a devastating stroke 6 years ago and we all knew he'd hate to linger with such extensive brain damage, so his wife made the decision to let him go. As hard as it was to let him die, it was the kindest and most loving thing to do. I'd hate to have to see him barely exist in a nursing home in such a destructed state. To us, that would have been cruel.

[Mithras]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
So, Terri Schiavo is now suffering what most right-minded individuals consider an inhumane and grisly and uncomfortable death -

So Cody, after further reflection, you've changed your mind on the acceptability of the refusal of artificial hydration and nutrition.
And since you consider it inhumane and grisly, do you oppose the legality of this practice when a person's wishes are explicit and in writing? Since merely having explicit wishes doesn't exactly make it any less inhumane and grisly, right?


p.s. SSharon: read the Tribune article; it was very sad but very interesting, and in the end redemptive. Thank you.

[Mithras]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
They may be crackers. Wouldn't you be if one of the people that you loved dearly was being extinguished in front of your very eyes?

As SSharon, zerostar, and grayware indicate, I think this is why the parents, Congress, and the media have turned off and even angered so many Americans -- many, many people have gone through a process roughly analogous to this, involving questions of refusing care with a terminal or essentially "gone" loved one. They know how hard it is, they feel acutely how personal an issue it is, many have made the tough choices, and they don't want it to be a circus. They also don't want to be told that the choice they made for grandma is "medical terrorism" as Tom DeLay put it -- and, they know it wasn't.

[Cody Dawg]

In writing? Fine. Explicit AND in writing? Even better.

My father-in-law is dying in NM. He is at home with hospice nurses there round the clock. His blood pressure is 90/40 tonight. They told me about half an hour ago that he is declining fast.

I'm making decisions about this and one of the things I was asked about was whether or not I wanted them to take him to the hospital for treatment for fluid in his lungs.

I said no. We did not want that because he does not want that.

Dying at home is one of the best life experiences that there is: Loved ones all around you in a familiar setting. Peaceful. Quiet. Calm.

Terri Schiavo has nurses around her. No parents. No brothers or sisters there round the clock. She is alone with strangers. Occasionally her parents come in...but then they leave. Michael Schiavo visits here and there..but then he leaves. What kind of serene and compassionate end is that? I think it is not right or good.

I hope I get to die at home with loved ones all around me. I hope it is calm and loving. I would never, ever, want to die the way Terri Schiavo is dying. I think it is terrible.

[lurkalot]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:


This is the beginning of state-sanctioned "legal" euthanasia, in my opinion. In this country, beginning with this case, it will now become de rigeur to kill off people using starvation and dehydration because this country is still so Puritan that it will not allow using drugs - drugs are saved for the worst of the worst criminals so that they can die with no pain.

Additionally, this method of killing someone off does not even meet the criteria requirements of the Netherlands - which advocates and has legalized euthanasia. Those criteria include:



NONE of the requirements are met in Terri Schiavo's instance and guess what? In the Netherlands which has legalized euthanasia ALL SIX CRITERIA MUST BE MET OR EUTHANASIA IS NOT PERMITTED.

So, Terri Schiavo is now suffering what most right-minded individuals consider an inhumane and grisly and uncomfortable death - in one of the supposedly most compassionate and progressive countries in the world.

It is truly unbelievable.

[/B]

What is truly unbelievable to me is that you manage consistently to find the most misleading websites and as a result write one message after the other misrepresenting the facts. I tentatively conclude that it can't be random. You apparently took the time to look it up so you must have run into other information... but I if I had to guess I would say that the International Task Force web site strikes again?

Paul Brophy died of Pneumonia after treatment -feeding, hydrating and the provision of medicine- was stopped on the request of his wife and in accordance with his own previously expressed wishes. Paul Brophy was a Catholic. His death did not in any way resemble the emotional and exaggerated "prediction" -of what [Likely] would be the results of the cessation of feeding and hydrating- given prior to his actual death by the dissenting judge.

Paul Brophy died on October 23, 1986. Mass murder of the disabled was not the result. Euthanasia was not what "killed" him. Legalizing euthanasia was not the result.

Medical evidence and personal observations of family and friends suggest that like Terri Schiavo, Paul Brophy was not aware of anything in the last years of his life anymore than in the last minutes.

In the Netherlands the body of Terri Schiavo would probably not have been sustained in a persistent vegetative state by artificial feeding tube for 15 years. You are comparing apples and oranges by citing that country's requirements for Euthanasia (The administration of lethal drugs for the express purpose of ending life on the request of a patient by someone else) on the one hand and comparing that to stopping -or never starting- unwanted or non beneficial medical treatment on the other hand.

According to a 2003 press release from the CBS (Dutch Central Bureau of Statistics) euthanasia as specifically defined above was the cause of death in 2.5% of the registered deaths in the Netherlands. 43% of all deaths in the Netherlands involved some sort of medical decision. Clearly euthanasia -as defined above- is not the preferred medical method of "allowing" death in the Netherlands either. Food, water, air and medicine are often withheld there as well.

Are you interested in a serious discussion of the differences in these two separate but related decision making processes? Are you interested in a serious comparative review of the medical and legal policies, in the Netherlands and the United States, on end of life decision making in particular and medical care in general? Either in this thread, the restart of an old one on that specific topic or in a completely new one. Serious question. Are you?

[zerostar]

Her "end" happened long ago. There is no cognition, no life, no activity left. Terri Schiavo is dead, the rotting husk is not her, it is not the person she was. Her life's legacy is now left as a forced martyr for a cause she may or may not have wanted to be involved in, that part is sad to me.

I hope her body dies soon and her husband fulfills her wishes.

[lurkalot]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
In writing? Fine. Explicit AND in writing? Even better.

My father-in-law is dying in NM. He is at home with hospice nurses there round the clock. His blood pressure is 90/40 tonight. They told me about half an hour ago that he is declining fast.

I'm making decisions about this and one of the things I was asked about was whether or not I wanted them to take him to the hospital for treatment for fluid in his lungs.

I said no. We did not want that because he does not want that.

Dying at home is one of the best life experiences that there is: Loved ones all around you in a familiar setting. Peaceful. Quiet. Calm.

Terri Schiavo has nurses around her. No parents. No brothers or sisters there round the clock. She is alone with strangers. Occasionally her parents come in...but then they leave. Michael Schiavo visits here and there..but then he leaves. What kind of serene and compassionate end is that? I think it is not right or good.

I hope I get to die at home with loved ones all around me. I hope it is calm and loving. I would never, ever, want to die the way Terri Schiavo is dying. I think it is terrible.

Does he have it in writing or did he specifically indicate he wanted to die from drowning after fluids start slowly flooding his lungs prior to becoming ill? You are a daughter-in-law. Why are you asked and allowed to make such decisions?

It is unrealistic and in my opinion wrong to insist on written "proof" of a person's intentions.

The animosity among the relatives in the Schiavo case are unfortunate but they are not completely unheard of either. It is unfortunate that these persist until the last dying moments of Terri Schiavo's life but that is not completely unheard of either.

You have demonstrated not to be aware of the specific relationships of the various members of Terri Schiavo's family. Why do you villify this one person? Is it because he makes decisions that are different than the one's you make or would make under those exact same circumstances?

[spacefreak]

Interesting article examining what appears to be the 2 different "fighting" factions...

THE SCHIAVO STAKES: WHAT THE FIGHT'S REALLY ABOUT
By John Podhoretz

The looming death by starvation of Terri Schiavo has exposed yet again the key fault line in American culture. Those who have sided with her parents in seeking the reinsertion of her feeding tube have a view of life that is profoundly different from those who have sided with her husband's quest to have her die.

Those who want her to live tend to view life as a gift � a treasure beyond value that has been bestowed upon us and that we therefore have no right to squander. The giver of the gift cannot be seen by the human eye, and the essence of the gift cannot be seen either.

We usually call that essence the "soul." Our souls define us: They make us who we are in the deepest sense. And they transcend us as well: They are our connection to the divine, to all in the universe that is unseen and unknowable but is still there.

Most religious people share this set of beliefs, which is why those who have pushed hardest to save Schiavo are devout Christians.

Many of those who want her to die, by contrast, view life as a natural phenomenon � a collision of egg and sperm that gives rise 280 days later to a baby. That baby is the product of human interaction, deriving genetic information equally from mother and father and recombining it into a new human form. It's a wonder, but it's not a miracle. It's explicable within the laws of nature, and so there isn't anything necessarily transcendent about it.

In some sense, then, the human body has a mechanical quality to it. We are created by a rational process. We all look kind of similar (arms, legs, eyes, nose, mouth, shoulders all in the same place), and we all have an inborn capacity to communicate, to learn and to develop complex relationships with other people. We're created and grow in the same way. Our core desires are the same � food, shelter, sleep, love. In this way of thinking, we are the world's most marvelous, most spectacular machines.

This is the view of life shared by most secular people, who are uncomfortable with the idea of a divine spark within all of us and prefer to think that science is the best explanation for everything.

These are both valid views. Each has its profound strengths and equally profound weaknesses. And despite the opinions of fanatics on both sides, neither view has a monopoly on virtue.

You can believe in the transcendency of the soul and still molest your own child. And nobody was more convinced of the value of scientific rationalism than Dr. Josef Mengele.

What do people on both sides of this divide see when they look at Terri Schiavo?

The scientific rationalists see a vegetable in human form, a life only in the strictest sense of the word. They see a human machine that is broken and cannot be repaired.

And they see, in the application of the law over the course of 15 years, a totally rational series of decisions. Her husband is her guardian. He says she wouldn't have wanted to live in this condition, and because she cannot speak, he has the legal authority to speak for her.

Then there are those who look at Terri Schiavo and see something else. They see a helpless person, a trapped person, a tragic person. But they do not see a vegetable. They see a human being with a soul.

They see a mystery.

The rationalists say she will not suffer through her slow starvation because she no longer feels. The soul-believers say there is no way to know that � that science has limits and that it reaches its limits when it tries to define what it means to be human.

The rationalists, who center their universe on the brain, see brain damage as a horror beyond imagining from which death would be a relief. Their antagonists center their convictions on a belief in the soul, and they say: No soul is of lesser value than any other.

The soul-believers have lost this argument to the rationalists. They are used to losing. They have been losing the argument on abortion for more than 30 years now. This isn't about winning for them. It's about believing in things that cannot be seen.

For some reason, the conviction of those who believe in the divine fills the scientific rationalists with unreasoning rage.

The refusal of the federal courts to hear the last-ditch appeals of Terri Schiavo's parents has caused some of their number to respond with glee. That response is doubtless due to the feeling that Republicans and conservatives have suffered a political defeat, so it can and should be dismissed as merely partisan and ideological.

But as you read this, in a Florida hospice, a woman is being starved to death, and nothing can stop it from happening now. This is not something that anyone should celebrate.

[deej5871]

Originally posted by ironknee:
would it make a difference if i didn't say at least? anyways let's move on

Actually it would have made a difference to me; but I agree, let's move on.

[lurkalot]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Interesting article examining what appears to be the 2 different "fighting" factions...

That is once again perception only. The division is only appearance. As I wrote before many of the high profile end of life cases in the United States involve people who were Christians.

Some quick examples:
Paul Brophy:
"I got very good guidance from my own parish priest at the time," she [Patricia Brophy] said. "I was very happy with the support I got from Paul's family and from the firefighters who supported us. Those were my angels, holding me up through the whole thing."

Estelle Browning:
"Neighbors also testified that Mrs. Browning had expressed her wishes orally in this regard several times. Mrs. Rose Kings, a close personal friend of Mrs. Browning since 1965, witnessed Mrs. Browning execute the 1985 document. She testified that Mrs. Browning signed the declaration about two days after visiting patients in a nursing home and had said, " 'Oh Lord, I hope this never happens to me ... thank God I've got this taken care of. I can go in peace when my time comes.' " Mrs. Kings' husband added that Mrs. Browning had a friend in the hospital on life- support and remarked that she " 'never want[ed] to be that way.' "

Personally I am relieved by the outcome of the case. I would not call it expressing glee however. The actual death won't be as horrible for Terri Schiavo as is often asserted and although it is sad for her parents that they now have to go through the last hours of their daughter's life in that mistaken belief I can't see another outcome at this point. To me it is clear enough that Terri Schiavo has indicated that she does not want her body sustained this way. I think that those around her parents are doing them a great disservice with the legal and spiritual advise and the medical information they are providing them. The family dispute is truly unfortunate. It is not that incredibly unusual and it is completely beyond my control. A compromise was not a possibility. Somewhat relieved but not joyful is how I look at this.

[zerostar]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Interesting article examining what appears to be the 2 different "fighting" factions...

I see one side. When I see the news I see one side FIGHTING, I see one side OFFERING PAYMENT FOR MURDER of someone with a different view. I see one side with tens of thousand of people up in arms filled with rage and pushing their children, these children who aren't even old enough to have an original thought in their heads, are being pushed to break the law, and some have even been arrested for trying to break in and give Terri water,.

I even saw a 3 year old on TV with a "PRO-CHOICE" t-shirt on, what a shame a child who probably doesn't even understand half of what the term means is already being indoctrinated in to what to think.

A bunch of "ditto heads" trying to push their beliefs on a woman who obviously didn't want them when she had the chance to make her own decisions.

I see one side. There are a few on this "other side" you want to conjure up, some who are the usual overly active protesting types who are perhaps too typical of the "other side" as of late.

Most of the "other side" have come to realize the decision was made, by Terri, by Michael, by the Judiciary and the decision is not ours, no matter if it is against our beliefs, our personal culture of life, our own standards and it is not our choice now matter how much we want to be involved. It is their choice and we need not butt-in.

For some reason, the conviction of those who believe in the divine fills the scientific rationalists with unreasoning rage.

Unreasoning rage is bombing an abortion clinic and killing 40 people who happen to work in a complex that a clinic leases.

Unreasoning rage is the brutal beating of a guy because he happened to like other guys.

Unreasoning rage is not, however, discussing the fate of a woman on a irrelevant message board, or some TV station looking for ratings, or some FOX columnist who no one even really gives a flip about until he post something they think is repost worthy.

[Mithras]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
Terri Schiavo has nurses around her. No parents. No brothers or sisters there round the clock. She is alone with strangers. Occasionally her parents come in...but then they leave. Michael Schiavo visits here and there..but then he leaves. What kind of serene and compassionate end is that? I think it is not right or good.

A friend pointed this out to me -- with all the protesting, appealing to judges, appearing on TV -- her parents are missing the death of their daughter. It's sad.

[Mithras]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Interesting article examining what appears to be the 2 different "fighting" factions...

Interesting, but certainly false, as evidenced by the polls showing that a plurality of evangelical Christians -- and > 80% of Americans overall -- support removing the feeding tube.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Interesting article examining what appears to be the 2 different "fighting" factions...

I think this article is dead on, if slanted (to the wrong side ), about the root of this conflict. Personally, I am totally on the side of science, as I can only believe what I can see (evidence of), and there's just no evidence for God. There is, however, evidence that for most of human history, life would just be too miserable to go on with save for the notion of a reward in the afterlife, or a vengeful overlord who would make you do the right thing. So I can see why religions would have existed everywhere and why they would be so entrenched. I'm not saying that every single person is (like me) all one side or the other, but that everyone has at least a little of one side in them and that is where the hostility over this case stems from.

Now, as to why my side might develop some hostility: It's because the fanatics of the other side are absolute ****ing hypocrites for taking this case under their wing but at the same time turning a blind eye to the millions of innocent helpless people in the US and elsewhere that starve to death every day, or are being bombed -- by the very same people who are supposed to be enamored with the divine spark of life in every person!

It seems to me that both sides recognize the situation of limited resources and the inability to sustain limitless population growth. The "science" side would prefer to support as many existing people as possible, and not focus on the unfortunate situations where there is no hope for survival (let's call this the MASH doctrine, after the way army hospitals in the Korean war (as I recall) were able to save an amazing 97% of wounded by evaluating patients on their actual chance of survival and not wasting precious resources that could be instead saving people with a chance). Then there's the "religious" side, who seems to say "let's save all the rich white people, regardless of their chances of survival, and as for the rest of the world, **** 'em." It's unforgivable.

Now of course I may be off on my interpretation of the other side's history of decision making, because they always refuse to respond to my question. But I'll ask once more:

"How do you feel about the starvation, poverty and slaughter of brown people who have no teams of lawyers to change US laws to try to keep them alive? Do they contain the same spark of the divine?"

[Cody Dawg]

A friend pointed this out to me -- with all the protesting, appealing to judges, appearing on TV -- her parents are missing the death of their daughter. It's sad.

What part of "Michael Schiavo only allows Terri's parents 15 minutes a day to visit with their daughter while she dies" do you not understand?



It's not as if they are ALLOWED to be with their daughter while she dies - on top of which Michael Schiavo does not intend to let them have her remains OR bury her in a place that they are able to access. Indeed, he indeeds to have her cremated and her ashes scattered. I think that's about as cruel as can be.

[Cody Dawg]

Michael Schiavo has a lot of enemies, it seems.

[Vi0]

This thread is about as useless as the media coverage of this story.

[Cody Dawg]

Then that makes your post useless also since you contributed.

Why post in a thread that is so "useless?"

[slow moe]

Let's switch gears for moment, pretty please.

Which of Terri's organs will fail first due to dehydration?

Will it be her kidneys because they require a certain amount of water to flush your body's toxins out?

Will it be her heart due to an extreme irregular heart beat brought about from very low electrolyte levels?

Or, will her lungs simply collapse first because they've in effect "dried out"?

These are legitimate medical questions, and considering her end is near I see no reason not to discuss what her body is going to do. Especially since her husband might not allow an autopsy to be performed.

[Cody Dawg]

I read this great article last night and it occurred to me that I am not sure that Terri is truly in a vegetative state because the two people supposedly vegetative in the article sound worse than Terri Schaivo. But it made me think about being in this same situation and I came to the conclusion that I could possibly see a situation where I would want to end the suffering of my loved one also if they were persistently vegetative. With that much said, I can see how Michael Schiavo would want to end his wife's suffering.

However, I still don't agree with the way that he treats her parents.

Here is an illuminating article where two mothers make different decisions about the care of their vegetative children. I can honestly say that I would not want to be kept alive this way in a vegetative state. I would also not want my child to suffer and would probably want it to end for him or her.

Good article (copying and pasting since it requires logging in to read it):

Day after day, year after year, two mothers sat vigil beside their children.

They sang snatches of favorite songs. They told bright stories out of fragments of the past: Remember when you put that snake in my flowerpot? Remember playing with our old dog, Sweeper?

In Florida, Kaye O'Bara would stroke her daughter's cheek. "Wake up, honey," she'd say. "Wake up and we'll go to Disney."

In Kansas, Shirley Bradley would clutch her son's limp hand. "Squeeze if you can hear me," she'd tell him.

The daughter did not wake up. The son did not squeeze back. The children would not ever again speak or read or move. Their brains were damaged beyond recovery. And so the mothers made their choices.

Kaye O'Bara chose to bring her daughter home, to sustain a life she still viewed as a blessing. Shirley Bradley chose to close off her son's feeding tube, to end what she saw as his suffering.

Neither mother would presume to pass judgment on the other.

Neither claims to have made the right choice. Just the choice that was best for her child.



With the certainty of a mother's love, Kaye O'Bara knows her daughter is happy.

Edwarda O'Bara lies in a sea-green nightgown, on sea-green sheets, in a room filled with angel figurines. Her gray-green eyes flick about, restless and unfocused. Her tongue lolls slackly in her open mouth.

The TV is tuned to Jerry Springer until O'Bara notices and, clucking, changes the channel. "Edwarda doesn't like Jerry," she explains. "She never did like anything smutty."

When she was 16, a lack of insulin sent Edwarda into a diabetic coma. Her heart stopped for several minutes; her brain, starved for oxygen, began to shut down. She can breathe on her own, and cough, but not much more. Edwarda turns 52 tomorrow. On her birthday, as on every day, her mother will braid her long, gray hair with ribbons and pour a mixture of baby food, eggs, milk and yeast into her feeding tube.

Edwarda coughs hoarsely, chest heaving.

"What's the matter, pumpkin?" O'Bara asks, threading a tube down her throat to suck out the mucous. "What's the matter? You want to turn over?"

O'Bara wrestles with Edwarda's motionless body, hoisting her up to change the pad on her sheet, adjusting her head, shifting her hips to avoid bedsores. "You're going for your ride, aren't you?" she says, in the singsong voice mothers use with babies. "You're going for your ride!"

O'Bara, 77, is panting a bit with the effort of turning her daughter. She has done this every two hours, day and night, for 35 years.

"There you are! Miss America!" O'Bara croons, fluffing the pillow. She nuzzles up to Edwarda's cheek. "Oooh, I love you. I love you."

As her mother kisses her, Edwarda's mouth curls into an awkward, fleeting smile.



Shirley Bradley got those smiles, too.

But she knew, with the certainty of a mother's love, that they meant nothing.

For 12 years she had watched over her son, Randy McCullough, in his nursing-home bed. Unmoving, unseeing, his warm brown eyes had gone dull, his limbs stiff and wracked with spasms.

He seemed to know when his mother was with him. Massaging him, she could soothe him into sleep. Although he, like Edwarda, was in a persistent vegetative state, sometimes he seemed to smile at her.

"That smile. That wasn't a smile," she says now, sitting in her home in Topeka, Kan. "It was a muscle reaction. Involuntary. Randy was gone."

She had known it the moment she saw her 25-year-old son strapped to a hospital gurney after a motorcycle crash that had caused head injuries so extensive that he was not breathing when the paramedics arrived.

"I knew intuitively that Randy's spirit, Randy's essence, was no longer with him," says Bradley, a social worker.

She nurtured the body on the bed, tended the sores and kissed the slack cheeks, but it began to seem a charade: "This body was being kept alive, but there was no person in it."



For the first 25 years after Edwarda came home to stay, O'Bara left the house only twice: Once for her husband's funeral and once for her other daughter's wedding.

The wedding was held in a church. But the reception was in the O'Baras' small bungalow in this Miami suburb -- around Edwarda's bed. The priest pinned a corsage on Edwarda's nightgown. The bride held her big sister's hand and told her all about the ceremony.

Ever since she brought Edwarda home on May 31, 1970 � five months after the teenager slipped into a diabetic coma while everyone thought she was simply sleeping off the flu � O'Bara has chosen to treat her as a functioning member of the family.

She varies her diet by alternating mashed carrots and mashed green beans in her feeding tube. She rubs sugar-free Popsicles along her lips, and dabs banana pudding on her tongue. She reads the newspaper to her daughter. She paints her nails and shaves her legs as though she might get up tomorrow and go off to the high school prom.

She will not subject Edwarda to any experimental treatment for brain damage, lest it make her worse. But she makes sure she gets the same medical care as anyone else. Edwarda has had surgery on both kidneys and on a collapsed lung. She had a lump in her breast removed; it turned out to be benign. Her mother checks her blood sugar every four hours, around the clock.

O'Bara used to say with conviction that Edwarda would wake up. Now, she says only that perhaps she might.

But even if her daughter remains in this state until she dies, O'Bara has no doubt that it's a life worth living.

"It's all how you look at life," says O'Bara, a former teacher at a Catholic school. "She's enjoying doing what she's doing."

She says her daughter can understand the love that surrounds her and that Edwarda has been blessed with a special power to heal. A book and video about the O'Bara family have drawn visitors to Edwarda's bedside from around the world; several have said she helped them recover from grave illness.

"Maybe someone would come in and say Edwarda doesn't have a good quality of life," O'Bara says. "Well, can you tell me anyone doing as much good as she's doing? To me, that's quality of life."



After the accident in 1991, Bradley saw no quality in her son's life.

Randy, the youngest of her three children, was always so playful, so full of zeal. He loved to wrestle, to water-ski, to pump up his biceps to impress the girls. In the sunroom of her Topeka home, Bradley holds up a photo of her son. He stands waist-deep in water, muscles bulging out of his yellow life vest, grinning and blowing a kiss. That was Randy, alive.

In the nursing-home bed, "he was living, breathing, pulsating, but it was a life sustained only by technical means," his mother says.

"There was energy, of course. But it wasn't life."

The doctors advised her to wait; they told her it was possible he could recover some function. So Bradley waited. She and Randy's father � the couple had divorced several years earlier � visited the nursing home daily. Bradley talked to Randy about silly memories: the chocolate cake with caramel icing she baked for his birthday, the treehouse he built with his father, the endless games of Sorry with his two older sisters.

She hoped he could hear her. She never saw any sign that he did.

Instead, she saw his bedsores fester. She noticed bruises caused when his caretakers dropped him as they struggled to prop him in a wheelchair.

He got sick with bout after bout of pneumonia. The antibiotics gave him diarrhea so constant, the skin on his bottom began to peel. Randy had trouble coughing up phlegm, so nurses would suction it out with a tube that made him gag. "I kept thinking: Why are we doing this? Why are doing this?" his mother said.

After several years of fighting to get good care for him in Topeka, Bradley moved her son to a nursing home near his sisters in North Dakota, where she thought he might get more attention. His sisters visited him often; she flew up to see him several times a year. His care did seem to improve. He stopped getting pneumonia.

But his mother noticed a rigidity in his face, in his body, that convinced her he was in pain.

One day, she says, she saw in her son's eyes a plea for help.

"I hesitate to say this, because people won't understand, but if there was any life in that body at all, it was as if he was saying: 'I've had enough. I've had enough.' I knew then that I couldn't stop until I brought him peace."

Bradley told Randy's doctor what she wanted to do.

The doctor convened an ethics committee; they studied Randy's case for months. Meanwhile, Bradley talked with other family members, gradually earning their assent. She also put herself through therapy. She wanted to make sure, she says, that she was acting only out of the "purest intent" � doing what was best for Randy, not what was most convenient for her.

In January 2003, the doctor agreed to stop feeding Randy, and Bradley flew to North Dakota, to her son.

"I told him what was going to happen. I told him how much I loved him. How much we appreciated the gift of him. I told him it was time now to bring him peace."

For six days, Bradley sat by her son's bed, watching him die.

Blisters pocked his mouth and tongue. His frail body shook with muscle cramps. It was agonizing, she says now: "gruesome, prolonged." But in the dying, "there was also something sacred, something beautiful."

At the end, she recalls, as he gasped for every breath, she wrapped him in her arms and whispered:

"Let go, Randy. I love you. Just let go."



"My goodness!" O'Bara chirps as Edwarda begins, again, to cough. "Cough it up strong. Can you do it yourself? Yes you can! There, that's a good one!"

O'Bara lifts the tube that feeds her daughter, uncaps it and pours in her homemade formula. She does this every six hours, nourishing Edwarda with 1,800 calories a day.

The formula costs O'Bara $219.80 a month. Other supplies � pads for the bed, lotion to keep Edwarda's skin smooth, tissues and alcohol swabs and catheter bags � run more than $400 a month.

Medicaid would pay for Edwarda's care if she were in a nursing home or a hospice � a bill that could easily top $60,000 a year. But because she stays at home, government programs cover only the costs of her medications and one hour a day of nursing care, O'Bara says.

To keep Edwarda comfortable, her mother has taken out multiple mortgages on her house. She juggles 21 credit cards. She cheerfully admits she's $300,000 in debt, but she refuses to worry.

O'Bara doesn't look back at what she missed in life by devoting all her days and all her nights to Edwarda. She refuses to fret about who will take over Edwarda's care in the years ahead. Her daughter is at home, where she belongs, and that's all that matters.

O'Bara wraps Edwarda's fingers around her own.

"You're a funny little kid, aren't you?" she murmurs. "You're a funny little kid."



A picture of Terri Schiavo fills the TV in Edwarda's room.

The sound is muted, so O'Bara squints to read the news flash: The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to step in. Schiavo's parents are nearly out of appeals in their fight to have their daughter's feeding tube reinstated. O'Bara strokes Edwarda's arm.

She has sympathy for both sides: For Schiavo's husband, who says Terri would have wanted the feeding tube removed, and for her parents, who say Terri would want to live.

There is no one correct course, O'Bara says. It's a private decision � one a family must make on its own, with love.

Bradley feels the same. Watching politicians and protesters presume to know what's best for Terri angers her. She would not have wanted a stranger to make the choice for Randy.

Bradley talks to her son often now. "None of us know what awaits us when we die, but I sense that he's aware I'm talking to him," she says. "He's healed. He's free."

Sitting by Edwarda's bed, surrounded by angels, O'Bara also talks to her child. "I see her," she says, "exactly the same as she always was."

[mdc]

Originally posted by Mithras:
A friend pointed this out to me -- with all the protesting, appealing to judges, appearing on TV -- her parents are missing the death of their daughter. It's sad.

a friend and i were watching this on tv last night and came to a very similar conclusion.

they are so intent on getting the tube put back in and thus having some more time until it is removed again and they have to start this battle again.

the other side to her parents not being there is that "would terry even realize they are there?"
if the answer to that is no and therefore her parents should rather spend the time fighting for her.

then why even keep her alive?

imo, they should say goodbye to their daughter, and go sit next to her while she passes.

[Ghoser777]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
Michael Schiavo has a lot of enemies, it seems.

Okay... so people don't like the decision Michale has made... what's your point? J.J. Redick gets death threats too, and all he does is put and orange ball in a net (at least until last night).

[Ghoser777]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
What part of "Michael Schiavo only allows Terri's parents 15 minutes a day to visit with their daughter while she dies" do you not understand?



It's not as if they are ALLOWED to be with their daughter while she dies - on top of which Michael Schiavo does not intend to let them have her remains OR bury her in a place that they are able to access. Indeed, he indeeds to have her cremated and her ashes scattered. I think that's about as cruel as can be.

Family Feuds are vicious. I don't know if at this point he's being an asshole because he is one, or because he's pissed at her parents. What's the story on the cremation part - is that something that "supposedly" Terri told Michael and has been backed up in court documents or not? (just curious... and no, I'm not reading through over a 1000 posts to see if this point was already properly addressed. If so, just link me to the appropriate post and I'll be happy as a clam.)

[Mithras]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
I read this great article last night

Thanks Cody, it was a great article.