h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/pp.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=475595
Momentary glory for politicians

It's sickening. Let the poor woman die in peace.

They can't do that, yet it's perfectly fine to execute people on death row or drop bombs on them. Makes no sense at all.

I just heard the judge refused to start feeding her again. It worries me, she wasn't on life-support, she was able to smile and watch people with her eyes, maybe that is life enough for her. Instead she will be forced to die of starvation, perhaps all the while screaming in her mind, that she wants a chance.

I am biased by learning of occasions such as this. I have posted it on a few discussions about this topic but I do not know whether either of you are reading them, so please forgive the repeat
http://www.ragged-edge-mag.com/extra/wokeup.html

As far as I'm concerned, the issue here is no longer whether it's right to end the woman's life. The issue is whether it's right for the US government to get involved. They don't get involved in every case like this, just this one. Strikes me that they've only got involved in this case because it made the news and they'll look good with the 'conservatives' and 'pro-life' people. And what right does Dubya have to take the 'moral high ground' over this when, as Governor, he signed legislation giving doctors the right to withdraw treatment regardless of families' wishes?

Exactly Kaz/Sorrel... I see it as a disability rights issue, not a "right to die" case at all!

The article in the link is not about whether to honor the parents or husbands wishes but the political circus and show surrounding it.
It is gross
The Govenor of Florida and has been heavily involved - is Jeb Bush , soon to be another Bush Presidental candidate.

These same players have a history of voting for medical cuts The same government has voted to limit personal injury cases, to stop or lower medical payments and services,(especially to the poor) which includes most in catastropic or chronic illness, are the same ones that fight for her to "live" another 15 years.

****************

If the parents wanted her to get care and believed she has a life why did they not assume the responsibility 15 or 10 or 5 years ago?
Quality of life was something she may have had more of a chance for early on, long before removing the tube several times. I seriously doubt that her family would be able to care for her as they say. But if they want and win this sort of *best life for her* and she has the feeding tube put down, her parents should take her home and be a part of her life.

I think her father is more realistic than the mother.
She has lived this long partly because she had money from a personal injury suit. There are different unwritten rules depending on age, condition, who can pay and where you are that are not set by the family and no opinion is asked. Whether a living will is honored in the state you are in, when the issue comes up ,is another thing.

Meanwhile GWB - while Govenor of Texas - voted in such a way on funding and life support issues ,that a 6 month old baby was removed from support in Texas against the parents will.

It should be a family and medical issue not a political one.

If medicine had not gone to extraordinary measures to begin with she would have died "naturally." Naturally is a bit questionable considering the bizarre irony that she was bulemic and anorexic which led to her heart attack and her life ending involves a feeding tubeI would like to back up further and ask if counseling was available when she had those original problems. With the severe lack of funds I doubt it.

IF a persons choice is not be fed, after a given amount of time rather than suffering why isn't their doctor allowed to ease the extended suffering? I believe if you are allowed to remove a feeding tube or refuse a tracheotomy you should be allowed the option to euthanize after 72 hours or some later end date. The current law causes uneccesary suffering to those whom refuse treatments such as these. They are saying they would rather die but in most cases there is no way to help them ease into it more peacefully.

***************

I am on the other side of this point on being disabled and wanting no further extraordinary means done for me . If I were to be additionally severely injured or (depending on the type of) knew of a fatal and quick cancer I would not spend my time resorting to such efforts.

I would want others offered the full range of choices and in no way limited or brushed off.
I believe in the choice of ones own limits and they should be honored if reasonable to them and the doctor.

I would not want this to happen to me.
In any other case the husbands word overrides the mother or fathers unless sotherwise stated in a living will.

This is one reason gays in the US want family and marriage rights. Too many AIDS patients were forced to return to their estranged families for support, life and death decisions. They were moved from the life they had for decades to their parents homes, their partners where banned from visits in hospitals and homes,never consulted in the care in some cases.

It is about so many things from so many angles.
I believe if you are allowed to remove a feeding tube you should be allowed to euthanize after 72 hours or some later end date. The current law also causes additional uneccesary suffering when refusing some care.

***********
Create a living will is the lesson.
Give it to your doctor , have it handy at home and have copies,safest to have a mini-version on you or a card with who to call about living will. Hope you are in the same state it was signed in and married to the same person whom you trust OR have named an alternate whom you know well enoughParents usually are not named because of the expectation of out living them and because most find it hard to honor wishes to give up or stop treatments.

<>

Well, abbi, I have got the impression that they would have liked to, but the law means that the husband has the right to over-rule what her parents and siblings wanted.

<>
I have never heard that! What I have heard is that the husband has been violent to her in the past, and that there is evidence that that was the real cause of her injury - I've heard on the news over the past two days, that she had a heart attack, then that she had a stroke - which is it? Was it both, one after the other?
To me, it really is a disability rights issue, not a "right to die" issue. Excuse me if I have already posted this extract, but it seems to me to sum up what it's about ..
"The videotape that clearly shows Terri responding to her mother signed her death warrant in some people's minds. When I mentioned the videotape in the waiting room, an older man said, "Did you see how bad she looked? I would never want to live like that!" No Clark Gable himself, he still believed in "better dead than disabled-looking."

No one I've talked to locally was aware of the conflict of interest in Terri's legal guardian, Michael Schiavo, who is still legally her husband. Several asked why her husband would want her dead if it was not "better" for her. I listed for them facts of the case: that Michael stands to inherit Terri's money, that his new "wife" wants to marry in the Catholic Church but cannot unless Terri dies, that we have only his word that Terri said she would want to die rather than have a feeding tube. Why hasn't the media reported this? they ask. Why indeed?

Several things have come clear:

Most Americans strongly believe in "better dead than disabled." They do not want to be confused by facts. Media, complicit, relentlessly reinforce this mantra of the "right to die" movement. Whether it's our unique bodies they object to or the devices (like feeding tubes) that some of us use every day, or whether they simply see disability as social death,they make it plain that we would be "better off" dead.

Clearly, one of the main tasks of the disability rights nation is to fight this perception tooth and nail wherever it shows its evil self."

<>

The husband is the *only* one who wants her to die. He has the support of many groups that I can call only "anti-life" groups, even here in New Zealand!
Because he has denied Terri any communicative aids, no one knows what *her* opinion is, whether she wants to die. (It is a myth that she is in a persistent vegetative state, that as a man said on the radio this morning "I saw a scan of her brain on the TV last night, the reporter said it had all turned to mush". How would a reporter know? I saw the same news story. The husband (who has been with another woman for at least 10 years)has complete power as her "guardian" and will not let her parents near her with a doctor, so *of course* it's his doctors that the media interview, they're the only ones to have access to her.

Of the $1.4 million she was awarded in a malpractice suit, her husband has spent the majority of it on lawyers. (See her parents' site, http://www.terrisfight.org

It is really hard to know the truth.
I have not heard all that you have.
I have heard rebutles to much of what you have heard.
I have seen all of the people in question interviewed.
I do not know the truth and I do not think the politicians care about it. Two doctors that are in congress diagnosed her by way of years old video! That is unethical and impossible, maybe illegal.

I think *posiibly*
IF the husband was abusive what interest would he have in denying the parents? He could have been free of all responsibility. Medical collection agencies and lawyers and insurance would get that money before her husband, no doubt. This is the USA

Like everything the politians get involved in, the truth is lost.
That IS my point.
It is not a disability rights or a dying issue to me ,it is a personal medical decision issue.

In this moment it is another spotlight on the elect Jeb Bush issue.
This law they spent tens of thousands and 19 judges on is ONLY for her.

The Right to refuse treatment is different than the right to die (at times) and it is different than active euthanasia.
It is different than selective abortion during IVF.
An adult is different than a newborn infant reguardless of conditions,opinions,laws, ability to care for them.

This of all issues should not be black and white, should not be legislated by the federal government. One big swoop taking in alll of the issues is not right to me.
It is every bit as important as a fair chance at the pursuit of happiness. Not black and white but varied for individual personal responsibility, consideration and integrity.

***************
If the government expects all to live by all means then they better be ready to pay for it with medications, therapies, and preventative care to keep more people from getting into this state. They are not.

Cheerful dragon has nailed it for me.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1957396.stm

I will not get into politics, as I will not take sides because I have veiws for and against. But because of my curvature of the spine, if not for a specialist, I would have been bent over at 90%, as a young child, I stated that if I was of no use nor ornament, I would have found away to top myself. This was not suicidal, but if I was unable to do "normal" things(if you understand me). My friends brother is unable to move/talk due to advanced Parkinson's disease, just laid in a bed,tubes/bags for bodily functions(please forgive this)a good brain in a useless body, that is not life, that is existance and just to exist isn't enough. I do not mean to demean anyones point of veiw or what is happening in America. I feel sadness for the lady, but I think of the saying "cruel to be kind".

I hope that I have not offended anyone

Some husbands are abusive and into control, he wants to see it through perhaps. As a control freak he won't relinquish responsibility.

How come Terri is still his wife, if he married again, why weren't they divorced? He has moved on, decisions should go to someone who is there.

Maybe she can communicate, has all been tried? LIke the lady in the link I posted, she needed sympathetic people to give her a go, does this woman have any? Have all attempts at communication been made?

I don't care whether politicians got involved or not. Ths is peope saying she looks so bad, she should die, as though she makes them feel uncomfortable. Well, hard luck to them, she should have the right to live, but no listens to her. She smiles and watches people, it would be enough for me. For the judge to deny her feeding tube, is a cruel, slow murder.

When allowing someone to live comes down purely to money, then we know we are living in a world of evil. I stop thinking that maybe she is thinking, trying to signal with her eyes, her pain as she dehydrates. Will she change? Will her smiles disappear, her looks become more frantic, will the husband be sitting there gleefully watching her agony.

<> (abbi)

<> (Della/Apple)

I read this past week (I think it was in the Guardian) that the heart attack/seizure had been brought on by a serious drop in potassium, a result of her anorexia/bulimia problem.

Has anyone other than Terri's family suggested that the seizure was brought on by a beating by her husband? Surely the attending doctors at the time would have noticed any signs of physical abuse.

<> (Della/Apple)

I think most Americans would be insulted by that unfair sweeping generalisation, and rightly so.


az

Most doctors who have been involved in the case are in agreement that Terri's condition was brought on by her heart stopping, due to an eating disorder. They are also in agreement that Terri's condition will not improve.

I don't feel that we have a right to attempt to read her husband's mind and decide that he wants her gone so he can get at her money.

I have not gotten a Living Will drawn up yet, but those close to me know that my wishes are that if I were to wind up in a vegetative state, I would not want to be kept alive. If Terri's family truly care about her, they should honor her wishes.

<> (Della/Apple)

I guess Della has met most Americans and can read their minds. How fortunate for her!

I do not believe "better dead than disabled". I do, however, believe in honoring the wishes of disabled individuals who might not want to be forced to live a life of suffering.

I'm also very careful to study a great number of facts before I open my mouth. If only the "moral majority" (who are neither) or the Christian Right (who are again neither) would bother to do the same.

And I think that the fact that Mr. Schiavo spent the money from Terri's malpractice suit on lawyers who have defended her right to die would indicate just how much he cares for his wife, and not that he is after her money. If I were after someone's money, I wouldn't be likely to spend it all for their benefit, would I?

>it's his doctors that the media interview, they're the only ones to have access to her.<

This is false: the doctors who have access to Terri are court-appointed doctors and as such, they are representative of neither side.

Speaking of gross politics - and gross reporting:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1444123,00.html

"At the weekend, after emergency sessions on Capitol Hill, President George Bush emerged from his bedroom in his pyjamas early on Monday to sign into law a bill sending the case for federal court review."

This is newsworthy? That GWB emerged from his bedroom wearing pj's? It would have been way more newsworthy if he'd been wearing scuba gear and a flower festooned bonnet.

Sorry, that just struck me as irresponsible and irrelevent reporting - who cares what he was wearing? What was the point in mentioning it?

I still find it horrible that she has to die by dehydration. And that this whole thing has turned into a political football. I'd bet there are hundreds of similar cases going on as we speak - but this one is getting the media attention.


az

I think the reason that Dubbya was reported as heading out in his pajamas to sign the bill into law, Az, was to reinforce how important it was to Dubbya to meddle in something that wasn't any of his business. I believe that there are a lot of folks who *would* see this fact as relevant- there are misinformed people who would see this as "look, he cares so much about this, he's willing to drag himself out of bed in the middle of the night to deal with this".

Thank you az and PC for those comments.
I believe the husband fought for her wishes.

I believe the doctors.
With all the attention on this case you can be sure they know what they are talking about. She has more doctors than most wealthy Americans.
Doctors shoot for life and they will stick by it in an overwhelmingly.
They see the "smile" , it's a face with no choice of expression.

****************

"Most Americans strongly believe in "better dead than disabled." They do not want to be confused by facts">> (Della/Apple)

I think most Americans would be insulted by that unfair sweeping generalisation, and rightly so.
az


I have grown accunstomed to the phrase "most Americans" leading to a negative comment on h2. While I have never been *most I still do not believe "most" would say that about another person. A few might say that about themselves while not being in the position, not being able to manage a differently abled life being full. That is not the point as several disabled people have attested to on this site, some Americans.

**********

This woman has far more than a disability.
I am on both sides if that means it is a personal decision.
There is no one size fits all ,it would be tragic and unfair if their were and that is what Americans are against.

Warning: Conservative Christians do Not = all Chrsitans.
Read the Bishops article, if you want to peek at another Christian view. (I will leave a link)

Her husband may have not wanted to divorce Terri, against her wishes, before death since she is Catholic. That is not the same as desserting her. It is in the courts hands since the last time they pulled the tube and replaced it.

***********
There are many cases like this, some worse.
It is cruel and unusual punishement to be stuck at this point suffering more than neccesary while dying. It was especially cruel to have this tube put back in after 6 days the last time. That has caused more suffering.

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/121/story_12143.html