artificial feeding-Terri Schiavo - page 31

I posted this here becaue I think this subject is something that we as nurses deal with on a regular basis.....Many many people state that they have a big problem with the feeding being stopped... Read More

  1. by   Kabin
    Quote from james huffman
    1. she is most definitely responsive; the videos indicate that. saying otherwise is simply ignoring the evidence.
    there's an obvious distinction that you choose to neglect. terri only has brain stem reflex and that's not enough to sustain life. but more importantly, terri decided that pvs is a state she did not want to exist with. if only the schindler family would humanely accept her wish the agony would have been over long ago.

    Quote from james huffman
    5. we can believe whom we want to believe. but michael schiavo, i continue to remind people says the following:

    "when is she going to die?"

    "has she died yet?"

    "when is that ***** gonna die?"

    "can't you do anything to accelerate her death - won't she ever die?"

    and her nurse pointed out that "when she wouldn't die, michael would be furious."

    i am disinclined to believe that someone who makes such statements is someone worthy of believing.
    assuming the quotes are factual, they still need to be taken in context. there's alot of agony in this and it's not easy for anyone. who knows what any of us would do or say after this many years of nonsense.

    i place more importance on the validity of the umpteen unanimous court decisions that fly in the face of your quotes. obviously, the courts have analyzed the issue far deeper than any of us have time to.

    Quote from james huffman
    6. since i'm not privy to the mind of the schindler family, i won't presume to guess that they are being "selfish." maybe they love their daughter, and don't want her to die. why is that such a problem?
    bioethics is clear in this regard. in a nutshell, it's not the schindler family's decision.
    Last edit by Kabin on Mar 22, '05
  2. by   LadyMadonna
    Quote from Kabin
    The only sick alive people involved in this case are the Shiavo family. They need to grasp reality that Terri has long since past. It's reported that an MRI has shown her cerbral cortex to have been liquified many years back. Instead, the family uses video and anecdotal experiences to manipulate congress and the public. Just yesterday on CNN Terri's father was quoted that he talked to Terri about taking her out for breakfast and she supposedly responded. Right! That family needs counseling.
    We watched a video of a frog that's brain had been pulvarized and it was downright creepy to watch what kind of actions that frog was capable of doing.
    I say the most merciuful thing would be to let her go. I don't believe anyone in their right mind would look at themselves in such a way and want to live like that.
  3. by   lpn3324
    Quote from Kyriaka
    I tell you what I am deeply confused about. Michael Shiavo is the "witness" that she said she did not want such and such. I find that very interesting.

    When I did a living will I had to have 2 witnesses to my decision. NEITHER of these individuals could be mentioned as beneficiaries at all in my estate.

    For those of you who do have living wills, what about you?? Could your witness(s) be someone in your family?
    The last page of my Florida Living Will Declaration states "Only one witness may be a spouse,blood relative,heir,or person responsible for the patient's health care costs" I had to have two witnesses. My son who lives out of state is my health care surrogate,because I know that my husband and other son will not be able to carry out my wishes.
    How can anybody say for sure what Terri's wishes were if they are not in writing.
  4. by   danu3
    Quote from nrskarenrn
    thanks pizzigirl for posting the link re schiavo timeline maintained by university of miami.

    ...

    wolfson's report

    governor bush's response to wolfson's report

    ...
    i'll would skip governor bush's response just to save time reading and because it is basically a generic thank you.

    the wolfson's report is worth reading. about 40 some odd pages. i personally learned a lot. and this is probably the most "neutral" report i've read. dr wolfson is a doc and an attorney. in the midst of all the emotions on both side, i am just thankful this country still have people like dr wolfson.

    i would recommend even reading the fine print and the appendix at the end.

    i find the small, very small footnote on page 37 on interesting. here is the quote:

    " but that is not enough. this evidence is compromised by the circumstances and the emmity between the parties. until recently, while both michael schiavo and the schindlers agreed that theresa was in a persistent vegetative state, they could not agree as to the matter of discontinuation of life support. recently, the schindlers have adopted what appears to be a position that theresa is not in a persistent vegetative state, and/or that they do not support the fact that such a medical state exists at all. yet throughout the nearly ten years of litigation, it is the issue of her ability to swallow, ingest food and hydration, and the findings regarding any residual cognitive ability that have marked the medical substance of this dispute.

    of the schindlers, there has evolved the unfortunate and inaccurate perception that they will "keep theresa alive at any and all cost" even if that were to result in her limbs being amputated and additional complex surgical and medical interventions being performed, and even if theresa had expressly indicated her intention not to be so maintained. during the course of the gal's investigation, the schindlers allow that this is not accurate, and that they never intended to imply a grusome maintenance of theresa at all costs.

    of michael schiavo, there is the incorrect perception that he has refused to relinguish his guardianship because of financial interests, and more recently, because of allegations that he actually abused theresa and seeks to hide this. there is no evidence in the record to substantiate any of these perceptions or allegations.

    until and unless there is objective, fresh mutually agreed upon closure regarding measurable and well accepted scientific bases for deducing theresa's clinical state. theresa will not be done justice. there must be at least a degree of trust with respect to a process that the factions competing for gheresa's best interest can agree. to benefit theresa, and in the overall interests of justice, good science, and public policy, there needs to be a fresh clean-hands starts.

    the schindlers and the schiavos are normal, decent people who have found themselves within the construct of an exceptional circumstance which none of them, indded, few reasonable and normal people could have imagined. as a consequence of this circumstance, extensive urban mythology has created toxic clouds, causing the parties and others to behave in ways that may not, in the order of things, serve the best interests of the ward."



    this is probably one of the least nonjudgemental, level headed, empathitic position i've seen. dr wolfson should be a nurse...

    -dan
    Last edit by danu3 on Mar 22, '05 : Reason: spelling
  5. by   tonalee
    Quote from fergus51
    Families are supposed to make these decisions for their loved ones. My main problem with this case is that the parents are trying to take control for the husband and in our country spouses are supposed to take precedence over parents.
    I have been reading through here and I have read about how Terri's husband should have the last say in this because he is her husband.PLEASE don not tell me that you believe all husband are the right choice to be doing this!I was in a relationship that was hell on this earth and I would have been dead in a moment if he could have done it in a quiet way that he could justify.I hope my duaghter meets Mr.Wonderful some day but if he turns out to be an ugly frog you can bet I will take over and protect her.Yes,I believe there are good points on both sides but if it just can't be agreed on then Terri's husband should let go of his marriage and go on with his life.If he has children with another women he has no place having a say anymore.He gave up his marriage when he went to bed and had children with someone else.He then gave up the right to have a say about this.HeIf he had to go on with his life he can do it legally too.
  6. by   danu3
    [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]I think somebody recommended this site already, not sure. But here it is if it is not recommended already:

    http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo_project.htm
    You have both sides on this site. So whichever side you are on, read the other side.

    http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/CT%20scan.png
    This is an old CAT scan of Terri's brain. Brush up your neuro stuff for those of us who have not deal with it for a while.

    -Dan
  7. by   James Huffman
    Quote from kabin
    there's an obvious distinction that you choose to neglect. terri only has brain stem reflex and that's not enough to sustain life. but more importantly, terri decided that pvs is a state she did not want to exist with. if only the schindler family would humanely accept her wish the agony would have been over long ago.

    assuming the quotes are factual, they still need to be taken in context. there's alot of agony in this and it's not easy for anyone. who knows what any of us would do or say after this many years of nonsense.

    i place more importance on the validity of the umpteen unanimous court decisions that fly in the face of your quotes. obviously, the courts have analyzed the issue far deeper than any of us have time to.


    bioethics is clear in this regard. in a nutshell, it's not the schindler family's decision.
    1. ms. schiavo is alive. that much we know. michael schiavo has consistently blocked any ability to do a full, complete, and impartial evaluation of her rehabilitation potential. let me kindly suggest that neither of us knows whether she has only brain stem reflex. let me further suggest that even if that's all she has, ms. schiavo was still capable of life. any of us reading this would die without food or hydration. the feeding tube is only that: a means of delivering food and hydration. this, of course, begs the bigger question of whether she is capable of swallowing. michael schiavo has also blocked evaluation of that potential.

    2. as far as ms. schiavo's wishes, there is no witness to them, except for michael schiavo. interesting that someone who allegedly felt so strongly about this issue never mentioned it to anyone else: parents, siblings, friends, priest, etc.

    3. i take the quotes in context. when any man consistently, over a long period of time, and to various individuals, calls his wife a "*****," expresses pleasure that she might soon be dead, and happily says that her death will be the cause of his being rich, then let's assume he means what he says, and take it seriously.

    4. i've seen so many dumb court decisions that i find it difficult to place faith in them. we as a country and society routinely reverse court decisions, and often completely disagree with what were previously thought to be important court judgements. for example, in dred scott (1857) the supreme court decided that americans of african descent were not citizens, not "persons" under the law, and could not expect protection from the federal government. none of us would agree with this outrageous decision. court opinions are simply not written in stone.

    jim huffman, rn
  8. by   bugsbee
    Stevielynn
    Yes I do know what hospice is for so has see been terminal for 15 years? And if her parents truly loved her would they be able to watch her in this vegatative state for so long. Her husband is the one who truly loves her and wants her to be in peace and not on display like her parents want.
  9. by   Kyriaka
    Quote from barefootlady
    The debate is over, the feeding tube will remain out. There was a constitutional issue here that was settled. That being said, I hope we all say a prayer for her parents today and everyday, it is never easy to lose a child, but this will be very, very difficult for them to endure.
    I find it strange that celebrities have made statements regarding how horrible her death would be without really understanding what it would really entail. I have lost respect for some of the publicity seekers who spoke without knowing the facts of how she will probably expire.
    Remember, I have kept my opinion to myself, it would surprise some you to know it, but I do have sympathy and concern for all involved.
    I do hope the spouse and parents can have private, meaningful visits with her before she slips away, I doubt the press will allow this though, and will wait like the vultures they are for one more headline.
    _____________
    Yes. We need to pray. We need to pray for our country.
  10. by   fergus51
    Quote from tonalee
    I have been reading through here and I have read about how Terri's husband should have the last say in this because he is her husband.PLEASE don not tell me that you believe all husband are the right choice to be doing this!I was in a relationship that was hell on this earth and I would have been dead in a moment if he could have done it in a quiet way that he could justify.I hope my duaghter meets Mr.Wonderful some day but if he turns out to be an ugly frog you can bet I will take over and protect her.Yes,I believe there are good points on both sides but if it just can't be agreed on then Terri's husband should let go of his marriage and go on with his life.If he has children with another women he has no place having a say anymore.He gave up his marriage when he went to bed and had children with someone else.He then gave up the right to have a say about this.HeIf he had to go on with his life he can do it legally too.
    I'm not saying spouses get to decide no matter what. But, barring any illegal acts and when they are in agreement with doctors, it's their decision. If your daughter marries a frog, then that's her choice. You don't get to be her decision maker forever because you are her parent. Sorry, that's just the way it is. It may not be ideal, but it's the system we have. There are a lot of jerk spouses and jerk parents out there.

    Would you feel the parents should get to make the decision if it was the other way around? (I mean if the parents wanted to remove the feeding tube and the husband wanted to keep it in).
  11. by   nursepotter05
    She has a brother-in-law who says she expressed to him the wish to not be kept alive artificially. There are other witnesses
    Quote from James Huffman
    1. Ms. Schiavo is alive. That much we know. Michael Schiavo has consistently blocked any ability to do a full, complete, and impartial evaluation of her rehabilitation potential. Let me kindly suggest that neither of us knows whether she has only brain stem reflex. Let me further suggest that even if that's all she has, Ms. Schiavo was still capable of life. Any of us reading this would die without food or hydration. The feeding tube is only that: a means of delivering food and hydration. This, of course, begs the bigger question of whether she is capable of swallowing. Michael Schiavo has also blocked evaluation of that potential.

    2. As far as Ms. Schiavo's wishes, there is no witness to them, except for Michael Schiavo. Interesting that someone who allegedly felt so strongly about this issue never mentioned it to anyone else: parents, siblings, friends, priest, etc.

    3. I take the quotes in context. When any man consistently, over a long period of time, and to various individuals, calls his wife a "*****," expresses pleasure that she might soon be dead, and happily says that her death will be the cause of his being rich, then let's assume he means what he says, and take it seriously.

    4. I've seen so many dumb court decisions that I find it difficult to place faith in them. We as a country and society routinely reverse court decisions, and often completely disagree with what were previously thought to be important court judgements. For example, in Dred Scott (1857) the Supreme Court decided that Americans of African descent were not citizens, not "persons" under the law, and could not expect protection from the Federal government. None of us would agree with this outrageous decision. Court opinions are simply not written in stone.

    Jim Huffman, RN
  12. by   TheCommuter
    In the early '90s, Michael Schiavo testified tearfully in front of a jury that he needed a lot of money to keep his wife alive. They sided with him.

    Now he wants her dead....

    I'd want to die rather than live in a vegetative state; however, his motives are questionable.
  13. by   TheCommuter
    Aren't nurses supposed to behave nonjudgmentally? Hmmm.... :stone

    It seems as if everyone has passed judgment in this heartbreaking saga.

close