The Next Schaivo Battle

[Violet]

From everything I have read and heard about "her wishes" they weren't even mentioned until her husband began the court battle to pull the plug, YEARS after she ended up a vegetable.
"Her wishes" are strictly a he said she said situation. There is no written or recorded proof of what she would want and her parents argument claims she would not be pro death so who really knows? Only Terri and she can't express her opinion.

shamrock_uk,
The local articles I have read have her husband portrayed as a pretty stand-up guy.

johnny, LOL!

I am pro DNR myself but unlike Terri Schaivo, I have it in writing.

Larry,
Get your wife to file a living will....do everything you can to get (both) your wishes in writing, otherwise, who knows who will have control over what happens to either of you!

I don't think we should be blaming politicians for this thing beingg dragged out....someone somewhere has to stand up for her family. How do we know the officials who insist on having her die aren't corrupt?
I read an article in Zine 22 today on political corruption roday...good guys have been set up and are in prison. Bad guys (including judges) are still in power. It was really scary.

[ 03-22-2005, 10:29 PM: Message edited by: Violet ]

[Larry_OHF]

Larry, Get your wife to file a living will....do everything you can to get (both) your wishes in writing, otherwise, who knows who will have control over what happens to either of you!

You are right. I need to, but I don't really know how to begin. How do I shop around for this sorta thing?

By the way, I heard from the Chairperson of Women for Life...the woman who plays the wife on Everybody loves Raymond...that in Holland doctors will euthanize newborn babies if they are going to be disabled in life. Can anybody imagine if they tried that here? I doubt we would ever go there, and in fact, we are going in the opposite direction from that.

Can anyone confirm that quote from the lady that I cannot remember the name of?

[Cerek]

Originally posted by Larry_OHF: You are right. I need to, but I don't really know how to begin. How do I shop around for this sorta thing?

You can get a Living Will packet from your local hospital or healthcare facility. It's free and very easy to fill out. Any medical facility you go to is going to strongly suggest you fill out a Living Will and provide a copy to them to keep in your Medical Record. That way, if you should ever need one, they hospital will already have it on file.

The standard form is several pages long and takes about 30-45 minutes to fill out. If there is a chance you may use more than one hospital or facility (depending on your needs), you should make a copy for EACH facility to have on file. You should also keep a copy at home so you can review it (on an annual basis preferably) to see if any changes need to be made. If you do need to make changes (for instance, if you got a divorce and no longer want your former spouse empowered to make decisions about your healthcare), simply get a NEW Living Will and fill it out with the appropriate changes made - then provide copies to the hospital of your choice.

Because of my own medical history, I have a copy of my Living Will on file at 4 seperate facilities. I've worked at two of the hospitals, so those were the two places I was most likely to go to for emergency treatment. My gastroenterologist has privileges at a different hospital from these two, so I put a copy on file there. Finally, my last two surgeries were performed at a facility in Atlanta, so I gave them a copy also in case I ever have to go back there for future treatment.

Living Wills are free and very easy to fill out. They will cover the "DNR" request for you through the questions and options in the form. And these forms ARE legally enforceable. As in Terri's case, I suppose it could be challenged by another family member, but since YOUR signature is on the Living Will, it will be much more difficult for them to fight it.

Just go to the Registration office of your local hospital and ask for Living Will. If they don't have them there, they can direct you to the department that does have them.

[Lucern]

Originally posted by Larry_OHF: Can anyone confirm that quote from the lady that I cannot remember the name of?

I can. That's essentially what she said. She also insisted that looking at the 'facts' of this case made it clear cut.

I also heard today about the lack of brain activity in her frontal cortex, would suggest that she is not only not self-aware (and hasn't been the entire time), but not aware of any pain. The brainstem had activity, however, in which the autonomic systems do their work in maintaining her breathing, etc.

[Melusine]

Originally posted by Larry_OHF: ...that in Holland doctors will euthanize newborn babies if they are going to be disabled in life.

Yes, well, sometimes we also do it if the baby is born with brown eyes or dark skin, or is in any other way undesirable.
If that doesn't work we put the babies on a course of hard drugs and when they grow up we try to force them to marry someone of their own sex.
Lastly euthanised babies are considered delicatessen in our top restaurants.



I suggest you occupy yourself with that splinter in your own eye - maybe the one that causes Americans to keep alive stories about the Dutch killing babies. There are tons of official sites you might have checked. We're a democratic, Western country, still, even though we do things that Bush doesn't like, and you could give us a little more credit than this.
Until some years back, we were the only country in the world with a law on euthanasia. That does mean we practise it, yes. So do other countries. At least we have some legal rules that doctors should adhere to. In 2000, unrequested euthanasia (i.e. the kind the Shaivo battle is about - where the patient can no longer ask for euthanasia him/herself) happened four times more in Belgium as in Holland. Belgium now has a euthanasialaw as well. This law does cover people who are unable to express their will, like babies, people in comas, severe Alzheimer cases, etc. But that is a FAR cry from suggesting we kill disabled babies here. Do you really believe that could happen without a huge outcry?? It comes dangerously close to a comparison with Nazi ideals and I find that very insulting.
A doctor assisting in euthanasia, by the way, is initially considered a murder suspect, until he proves he has acted carefully according to the law.
One other aspect people tend to forget when spreading cowboy stories about the Netherlands is that here, an act of euthanasia is never fuelled by financial reasons as could happen in *cough* other countries. Our social health system ensures that.

Hope that clears things up just a little.

[shamrock_uk]

Originally posted by Larry_OHF: By the way, I heard from the Chairperson of Women for Life...

Never believe what you hear from lobby groups

Just to give you an example of the tripe they spit out:

You say Holland is now on this slippery slope? Yes, Holland was the first modern nation to legalize euthanasia. What began as a few extraordinary cases, has now become routine. One hundred and thirty thousand people die each year in Holland, and over 20,000 are killed, directly or indirectly, by doctors. As many as half did not ask to be killed. These now include newborn infants judged to have too poor a quality of life. A judge has kayed direct euthanasia for a depressed person who was physically well. Killing has also been allowed for depressed teenagers. Hospitalized seniors are routinely visited by an organization that offers to oversee their case to prevent their doctor from killing them. When asked whether they approved of euthanasia, senior citizens, healthy and living in the economy, agreed by 50%. When the same question was asked of residents of nursing homes, only 3% approved. Judges have set up qualifications that must be honored before a doctor can kill a patient. These include repeated requests to die, uncontrollable pain, "Force majeure" (doctor has no other choice), witnesses and two doctors who agree.(From here)

The site is abortionfacts.com and even includes an out of context reference from the British Medical Journal at the end of that passage to try and give credence to their argument. I can just see all those depressed teenagers being bumped off...

These damn pro-life lobby groups are so loud that they're all over google - trying to find the actual text of the law itself was unsuccessful I'm afraid.

[ 03-23-2005, 06:06 AM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

[shamrock_uk]

After excluding American sites from my Google search:

Details of the law itself and a very good Q&A from the Dutch Government.

A measured criticism of the Dutch law from a British anti-euthanasia organisation. It's quite old, but still covers the issues.

The text from a House of Lords debate on the matter, including discussion of Holland.

A site with tons of links to different pro-euthanasia articles for the other side of the argument.

[ 03-23-2005, 06:39 AM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

[VulcanRider]

Appeals panel upholds judge's decision -- no tube

[Azred]

Of course the 11th District Court denied the request to reinsert the feeding tube--the Schindlers don't have an adequate case to keep Terri alive, and never have. They are simply continuing to engage in their insanely obsessive desire to keep the shell that formerly housed their daughter alive because they cannot let her go; any rational grief counselor would have told them to let go years ago.
Naturally, they are appealing to the Supreme Court, if possible...which is what I said they would do all along. If the Court hears the case they will uphold the rulings of the lower Courts, meaning all appeals are over.

I heard two different people on two different talking-head shows yesterday hint that Jeb Bush and the Florida Legislature might try some other last-minute attempt to keep Terri alive thtat involves National Guard forces...but I think this was either a) tough talk or b) raving madness.

In a moment of weirdness, Fox had an interview with a woman claiming to have been one of Terri's nurses six years ago (which she must have been or she probably wouldn't have been granted an interview). The former nurse claimed that Terri could talk (something no one else asserts) and that Michael injected Terri with insulin in an attempt to kill her (I'm certain the police would have been involved here). Needless to say, they had to cut her interview short to go to a "hard break" for a commercial [img]graemlins/beigesmilewinkgrin.gif[/img] ...and after that they never mentioned the nurse or her interview again. Whoops!

[ 03-23-2005, 09:33 AM: Message edited by: Azred ]

[Cerek]

Originally posted by shamrock_uk: An extremely good, intelligent and measured article on the Schaivo case can be found here.

I agree, shamrock, that was a very good and informative article. Michael Shaivo has been portrayed by much of the media coverage as the "bad guy" who wants his wife's feeding tube removed purely for selfish reasons. This article pointed out that Michael didn't even seek that option until all rehab and medical treatment options had been exhausted over an 8 year period (which I knew) and that he had petitioned the court to decide if Terri's tube should be removed (which I did not know). In other words, unlike the perspective some stories have given, Michael didn't just walk into the hospice center one day and announce he wanted the feeding tube removed. Instead, he petitioned a court to review the case and left the decision of what should be done in the hands of the COURT. He didn't even say "I want this tube removed. Review the case and tell me if I can do that." Instead, he said "Here is the situation. Review the case and let me know what the court's ruling on the issue is."

Another good point the author make is his refutation of the courts basically ordering Terri to be "killed". The author points out that patients have the RIGHT to REFUSE treatment (even life-saving treatment) if they so desire. And every court that has reviewed this case has consistently agreed the preponderance of evidence suggests Terri Shaivo did NOT want this type of medical treatment done to prolong her life. The feeding tube she has is NOT just a little tube that goes down her throat. It is a large tube that has to be surgically implanted through the abdomen directly into the stomach. The ONLY thing the "feeding" tube is accomplishing is providing enough nutrition to keep Terri's body functioning at a minimal level.

As for Terri's parents, I understand their grief and anguish, but they simply are not accepting reality. There is NO CHANCE of their little girl EVER recovering from the injury her brain has suffered. It has been 15 years (so far) since Terri's cardiac arrest caused the brain damage. Michael Schaivo sought ever possible treatment for 8 years before finally accepting the fact that Terri's condition might never improve. Her parents haven't reached that point yet. Medical technology has improved dramatically since Terri's original injury, but it still hasn't advance enough to give even a glimmer of hope that anything can be done that would lead to a recovery. Some of the doctors disagree about the full extent of damage done to her brain, but EVERY doctor that has studied the case DOES agree that the chance for recovery is non-existent.

If Terri's parents were to receive their wish to take over the care of their daughter for the rest of her life, the only thing they will be doing is providing maintenance to keep her body functioning. The parents claim that removing the tube would violate Terri's religious beliefs. At every funeral I've attended, the preacher pointed out that the only thing in the casket was the mortal SHELL of the person we knew and loved. It is left behind, but their soul has moved on. The only difference in Terri's case is that her soul is being prevented from moving on.