Well let's talk about her then.
What do you think on the issue?

(for those under rocks, Schiavo has been living in a Permenent Vegetative State for 15 years. Her parents say she responds to people and things, doctors say that she doesn't. She will never recover and has only been kept alive by the feeding tube, her husband, who has started another family in the last 15 years and is also her legally appointed guardian has decided to remove the tube, family is completely devestated and trying to appeal on all different ways to have it reinstated. Even the Gov't is getting in on the 'put the tube back' however the courts aren't letting it be done)

ANYHOW. I think it's sad and all.. and starving to death is just a horrid way to go.. but she was bulimic to begin with (PVT brought on by cardiac arrest due to Bulima) :O and apprently she won't feel anything as her spinal cord is mush. Or something like that.

If I was in such a state I give my permission to whoever to put a gun to my head and shoot me rather than live out 15+ years as a veg. And I think it's more horrid to force family members to live that way.
*nod*

I think her hubby is doing what she wanted. Her family just can't let go and want to paint him as a monster. After 15 years he deserves to be happy and while he has another woman I don't see how that is the cause for himw anting to take her feeding tube out.

I don't know anyone who would like to live a life like that and I think that she could go an easier way, so why don't they let her die another way?

Think outside the square you christian hippies!

I think it's f***ing ridiculous they've had it on her so long.

Admittedly, having never been in the situation, it's easy to say.
But 15yrs is a f***ing long time -- most wouldn't leave it go this long

Man, if I was a quadraplegic (sp?) I'd want someone to kill me.

Also, if someones in that type of state like that chick, what type of stupid f***s would want to keep them alive if there's no chance of recovery. f*** some people are dumb.

million dollar baby ftw

This is a really sad situation. The concept of quality of life is so subjective. This is why everyone should complete an Advanced Health Directive people! Basically her family think that the fact that Terri is able to smile / respond to their voices and visits and so on means that she has some quality of life. It's so hard to judge what the individual would want though - e.g. is there a difference in quality of life for someone who can't breath by themselves and so has to be artificially ventilated, compared to someone like Terri who is able to breath alone but can't eat or drink? Would you want to be kept alive in either / both / neither of those situations? Is there a difference?
In actual fact decisions like the one involving Terri occur every day in Australian hospitals as people (admittedly usually elderly people) deteriorate to a point where they can't tolerate food, and the family / next of kin then have to decide whether to prolong life by tube feeding.
There seems to be a big religious element involved in the controversy in the US... It's funny how religious nuts on occasion think medical intervention is going against God's will but in this case they want medical intervention to prolong life...

It's so hard to judge what the individual would want though - e.g. is there a difference in quality of life for someone who can't breath by themselves and so has to be artificially ventilated, compared to someone like Terri who is able to breath alone but can't eat or drink? Would you want to be kept alive in either / both / neither of those situations? Is there a difference?

I am not even married but I have discussed this with my better half. We aren't talking Christopher Reeve here, we are talking something a lot more serious and deteroirated.

This is why we have wills, power of attorny's, communication when we are alive. etc etc

IMO The whole thing is about money.

Aparently he had a life insurance policy (as spouses do) and they sued the IV clinic that didn't pickup the potassium imbalance that caused it all (as you would).

But the $$$s (rumoured to be in the millions) can't be touched until she dies (ie. its her money).

Or some s*** like that.

And of course he'd get none of it if he gets devorced or anything, so he can't get on with his life until she dies (which she really did 15 years ago).

ie. My cinical view of the world is the parents wanted to hold out until he gets on with his life, then take out an EPOA or become her legal guardians then have all the $$$s. And I think the husband was actually doing the humane right thing for the woman he once loved. While the goody too shoes parents playing the holier then thou christian card were out for the cash.

On a side note. We spend too much money trying to save extend the lives of people who will never really recover to the point where they can do anything meaningful. We need to just let people die sometimes, as opposed to euthanasia (which is a different issue again).

Christopher Reeve was "lucky" in that his intellectual and cognitive faculties were intact after his accident. For me, even as a quadriplegic, I think that would be enough for me to want to stay alive. You're right though, it's totally different with someone in this state - although the problem is that no-one really knows just how alert and intact things are with Terri. She may be screaming inside that she wants to live and just can't communicate it, or she may be wanting to die, or she may not have the cognitive ability to think any of these things. It's hard to know what's worse!

But everyone should have these discussions with their loved ones now, in the off chance that something terrible happens in the future. And then at least you have some idea about what that person would want. Although, would their wishes change once they were actually in that situation? It's tough.

wow, obes said something meaningful and deep :p

yeah, im in agreeance with the big man, there is a difference between natural course and euthanasia, and unfortunately sometimes by bypassing the natural course you are required to euthanase, which can be humane but is always going to be debated as a touchy subject.

if someone is obviously going to die within the next couple of years due to a condition or state, unless treatment can alleviate pain and give them quality of life, is it really worth it carrying them along by a string?

yes, i had a resident in my aged care centre, the other week where the family did exactly the same thing. she was elderly, with terminal cancer and had stopped responding to external stimuli, only being fed by tube.

on this basis the family decided to cease feeding her, and commenced pumping morphine into her body - not a lethal amount but enough to numb all sensation. she then commenced starving to death, renal failure kicked in causing her kidneys to shut down. she ceased to pass any fluids and eventually died peacefully in the space of a couple of days while her family were gathered around her.

i think it was a very loving thing to do and a dignified way for our resident to die because cancer is an immensely painful disease when it is agressive.

not identical but a similar scenario. every person has a right to refuse medical attention, and if they are incapacitated doctors will refer first to the will, then to the enduring power of attorney. not pleasant to think about, but it is to late to make the instructions after it happens.

Don't get me wrong tung, I am all for euthanasia. To me the ultimate quality in life is the ability to decide when its over.

If I got some funky ass brain tumour that will in 6months turn me into a breathing and eating vegetable that can be kept alive at great cost for another 10 or 20 years but it will hurt like a MotherFunker and I won't be able to talk or recognize anyone ... f*** that give em a 3month holiday with the most expensive glamourous hookers around, then kill me with some nice painless drugs.

But like I said, thats a different issue.

of course, but it seems that quite a few of these euthanasia situations are being brought on because people sometimes dont have enough foresight. im for euthanasia too, as that in itself is a quality of life.

Does anyone know how long they were married for before the accident?

6 years kat. Aparently they were undergoing IVF treatment to try and have a baby at the time.

Also it wasn't accident.

She had a potasium imbalance that lead to a cardiac arrest. He sued the IVF clinic becuase aparently a potasium level check is something that should have been done.

She died, was revived, but her cerebral core was totally destroyed.

Thats only what I have read and from what my sister was telling me (shes a CNC).

How much money do they think it takes to keep a person alive with round the clock care for 15 years?

I mean, if the husband was to get any money from her death, isn't it money he has already spent? Or at least the money would be eaten up in caring fees.

6 years and trying to IVF? Sounds like they had a strong relationship and I can't see why he shouldn't have the right to want to let go

More then likely medical insurance as well. So he won't have that many bills I am assuming, well atleast not ones that wouldn't have been part of the settlement with the IVF clinic (costs + punitive damages). But thats all just guesses.

So yeah I think there will be some money left over.

Is she actually on life support? I mean, really, if she is brain dead, theres no chance of her waking up... so, i dont know wtf they would keep her alive?

I still think that after 15 years the husband deserves the ability to let go. She deserves to live a life that is worth living or be let go and society and the courts need to but out.

Do they have power of attorny over there?

I think it's sad and all.. and starving to death is just a horrid way to go.. but she was bulimic to begin with (

Well, at least she's dying the way she liked to live

She is awake.
She can breath.
She can make involuntary moans from time to time.
She can't speak or communicate in anyway that anyone has noticed.
She can't feed herself.
She can't eat (if someone puts the food in her mouth).
She can't drink.

Her parents and sister claim she smiles and stuff and can recognize them. But no professionals will agree with that statement aparently.

Truely the lights are on but no one is home.

Judge aparently said all she has to do is say "I want to live" or makes an atempt to eat or drink something and the tube goes back in.

soylent green for her

And of course he'd get none of it if he gets devorced or anything, so he can't get on with his life until she dies (which she really did 15 years ago).

Well he can't get a divorce. I actually thought that was more motivation than money (I hadn't thought of money) but on the grounds that he has another family but he can't marry the woman he's with due to the fact that his wife is still alive.
*shrug*
that was my thoughts.

If the courts can order her feeding tube in or out, why the hell can't they grant him a divorce?

i guess that when 2 people join a contract, both must break it.

He ordered the tube out, not the courts.. and the courts aren't ordering it back it

Didn't he make an application and the courts issued an order? To me that means that the ourts did order it out.

Well if that's the way it worked.
But he was also appointed her legal guardian, thus able to make decisions as such. If Joe Bloggs put in the same order it wouldn't be granted. (Unless it was Jane Bloggs in such a state)

Her tube was removed by court order at her husband's request. Apparently he has been fighting the family for 7 years to have it removed.

This site has more info on it

Ok enough silliness this site has real info

Do they have power of attorny over there?

yes, and the husband has it. Thye just kicked upa big stnk over it for years.

Obes, I think you mean here

heh that too!

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-8/320476/aba2bca185881b6004f3b6f73ee3084b.jpg

haha that woman loves it.

didnt read the thread coz i really just dont care.... but looks like its time for the joke pix... so here goes!

http://home.comcast.net/~lunarbull5/terridoyouwantsomesausage.gif

^^ hahahah im going to hell.

I whole-heartedly question the husband's motives on this.

Any normal person, after leaving this woman and being married (w/ children) would hand over control/custody to the woman's family. Instead he was a complete f*** about it and even denied the family the right to see her during her dying moments.

Also.

Click!

*blink*

The more and more I read about this woman the glader I am she is dead.

Bulimia is the disease, starvation is the cure.

last edited by fpot at 23:19:15 05/Apr/05

yes, it was a good day.

It's pretty sad but kinda reminds me of Metallica's ONE film clip...