Artificial feeding-Terri Schiavo

allnurses Guide · Mar 25, 2005

Karen - just to clear up one misunderstanding. It was Michael's brother and sister-in-law who said she wouldn't want to be kept alive by machines. Here is an interesting take on the issue:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/debrasaunders/ds20050324.shtml

Why Terry must die

Debra Saunders (archive)

March 24, 2005 | Print | Send

I've heard the clamor as to why Terri Schiavo must die. No one, it is said, would want to live like her. Her parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, are religious fanatics. Many of her so-called supporters are "pro-life" zealots. Evil GOP geniuses passed a special law to help her live. And so, she must die.

I've followed this poignant case for two years. And my husband served at one time as an unpaid informal adviser to the Schindlers. I've heard the arguments, and they often start with: No one would want to live like that.

After all, this case is supposed to be about Terri's "right to die," even though no one knows for sure that she wants to die. She never wrote a living will or other document asserting as much. A court decided that she would want to die, based on casual remarks she made to her husband Michael and his brother and sister.

She told them she would never want to be kept alive by machines.

I hate to insert facts here, but it is a fact that a feeding tube is not a machine.

Yet somehow the courts found that those casual comments have the force of a legal document -- and apply to a feeding tube, when they were meant for a respirator.

In so ruling, a judge also ignored claims made by Michael Schiavo when he sued the hospital that first treated Terri in 1990 for $16 million for failing to detect her potassium imbalance.

As Newsday reported in 2003, he won $300,000 for himself for loss of consortium and $700,000 for his wife -- based on the presumption that Michael would care for Terri for the rest of her life.

It was not until 1998 that Michael Schiavo acted on the basis of his wife's stated wish not to live on life support.

Here's another slogan: A husband has a right to determine a wife's fate. It doesn't matter if he has a conflict -- in this case, two children sired by a woman he calls his fiance -- he still has a supreme right over Terri's fate.

Another reported fact: Michael Schiavo won't approve an MRI, although Terri is said to have had one years ago.

Those who argue that Terri Schiavo should die note that her doctors say her prognosis is hopeless. Doctors are always right, correct? There is the argument that the courts have adjudicated on this and sided with the husband. That's why the Schindlers and Republicans compare Schiavo to death-row defendants. The courts keep finding them guilty, and their lawyers keep filing appeals, because there should be no doubt as to the defendant's guilt and access to a fair trial.

If the law is going to give the benefit of the doubt to convicted killers, it makes sense to extend it to a woman whose only crime is that she is disabled.

OK, I'll take a deep breath and break from the polemics. This is a complicated case, and people of good faith can disagree. This involves a heart-wrenching decision that no one would take lightly.

Do I have problems with Congress passing a law for one person? Do I believe it is possible that Michael Schiavo, who did go to great lengths early on trying to help his wife, still has the best interests of Terri in mind? Do I want the government to stay out of end-of-life decisions that families are forced to make at a painful, raw time in their lives? Was I appalled when I heard Bob Schindler say on TV that he told his daughter, who is starving, he would "take her out for a little ride, get her some breakfast?" Yes, yes, yes and of course.

I also don't enjoy watching the Schindlers' attorneys make silly legal claims in a desperate attempt to entice the federal court to change course, when it is clear to me that the courts, federal and state, are going to stick to their guns, as they have the power to do.

But spare me the rhetoric about Republicans being hypocrites on states' rights -- fresh from the mouths of Democrats who don't want to let Alaskans drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, who don't want states to determine their own gun-control laws and couldn't wait for the feds to storm the home of the Miami family of Elian Gonzalez.

Let me also say that Congress -- with Democratic votes, I'll add -- didn't pass a law requiring that the feeding tube be reinserted in Terri Schiavo. It passed a law handing the case on to federal courts.

I'm no fan of Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas. But the House majority leader is right in this case. It's not clear Terri Schiavo would want to die. A husband does not -- in my book -- have an absolute right to withdraw life-sustaining treatment for his wife.

I wish the courts had ruled in Terri Schiavo's favor, even as I accept the fact that they have not and likely will not. It is possible, after all, that Terri Schiavo wants to die. It's just too bad that she will die, regardless of whether she wanted to or not.

ScarlettRN · Mar 25, 2005

I can't go thru all these posts, so I need to ask, has it been mentioned yet that an MRI is out of the question with a stimulator in her brain? I don't know how feasible it is to remove the thing, either.

If I were King Solomon (Just call me Queen Scarlett) I would take custody of her, do another stupid CT scan, another barium swallow, hand pick 5 independent doctors, and once and for all get a diagnosis that is agreed upon. THEN, I would err on the side of life.

Having said that, I don't think Mike Schiavo is the devil, and I don't think Mr and Mrs Schindler are angels.

King Solomon, where are you?

boxermom · Mar 25, 2005

Karen - just to clear up one misunderstanding. It was Michael's brother and sister-in-law who said she wouldn't want to be kept alive by machines. Here is an interesting take on the issue:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/debrasaunders/ds20050324.shtml
Why Terry must die
Debra Saunders (archive)
March 24, 2005 | Print | Send
I've heard the clamor as to why Terri Schiavo must die. No one, it is said, would want to live like her. Her parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, are
religious fanatics. Many of her so-called supporters are "pro-life" zealots. Evil GOP geniuses passed a special law to help her live. And so, she must die.
I've followed this poignant case for two years. And my husband served at one time as an unpaid informal adviser to the Schindlers. I've heard the arguments, and they often start with: No one would want to live like that.
After all, this case is supposed to be about Terri's "right to die," even though no one knows for sure that she wants to die. She never wrote a living will or other document asserting as much. A court decided that she would want to die, based on casual remarks she made to her husband Michael and his brother and sister.
She told them she would never want to be kept alive by machines.
I hate to insert facts here, but it is a fact that a feeding tube is not a machine.
Yet somehow the courts found that those casual comments have the force of a legal document -- and apply to a feeding tube, when they were meant for a respirator.
In so ruling, a judge also ignored claims made by Michael Schiavo when he sued the hospital that first treated Terri in 1990 for $16 million for failing to detect her potassium imbalance.
As Newsday reported in 2003, he won $300,000 for himself for loss of consortium and $700,000 for his wife -- based on the presumption that Michael would care for Terri for the rest of her life.
It was not until 1998 that Michael Schiavo acted on the basis of his wife's stated wish not to live on life support.
Here's another slogan: A husband has a right to determine a wife's fate. It doesn't matter if he has a conflict -- in this case, two children sired by a woman he calls his fiance -- he still has a supreme right over Terri's fate.
Another reported fact: Michael Schiavo won't approve an MRI, although Terri is said to have had one years ago.
Those who argue that Terri Schiavo should die note that her doctors say her prognosis is hopeless. Doctors are always right, correct? There is the argument that the courts have adjudicated on this and sided with the husband. That's why the Schindlers and Republicans compare Schiavo to death-row defendants. The courts keep finding them guilty, and their lawyers keep filing appeals, because there should be no doubt as to the defendant's guilt and access to a fair trial.
If the law is going to give the benefit of the doubt to convicted killers, it makes sense to extend it to a woman whose only crime is that she is disabled.
OK, I'll take a deep breath and break from the polemics. This is a complicated case, and people of good faith can disagree. This involves a heart-wrenching decision that no one would take lightly.
Do I have problems with Congress passing a law for one person? Do I believe it is possible that Michael Schiavo, who did go to great lengths early on trying to help his wife, still has the best interests of Terri in mind? Do I want the government to stay out of end-of-life decisions that families are forced to make at a painful, raw time in their lives? Was I appalled when I heard Bob Schindler say on TV that he told his daughter, who is starving, he would "take her out for a little ride, get her some breakfast?" Yes, yes, yes and of course.
I also don't enjoy watching the Schindlers' attorneys make silly legal claims in a desperate attempt to entice the federal court to change course, when it is clear to me that the courts, federal and state, are going to stick to their guns, as they have the power to do.
But spare me the rhetoric about Republicans being hypocrites on states' rights -- fresh from the mouths of Democrats who don't want to let Alaskans drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, who don't want states to determine their own gun-control laws and couldn't wait for the feds to storm the home of the Miami family of Elian Gonzalez.
Let me also say that Congress -- with Democratic votes, I'll add -- didn't pass a law requiring that the feeding tube be reinserted in Terri Schiavo. It passed a law handing the case on to federal courts.
I'm no fan of Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas. But the House majority leader is right in this case. It's not clear Terri Schiavo would want to die. A husband does not -- in my book -- have an absolute right to withdraw life-sustaining treatment for his wife.
I wish the courts had ruled in Terri Schiavo's favor, even as I accept the fact that they have not and likely will not. It is possible, after all, that Terri Schiavo wants to die. It's just too bad that she will die, regardless of whether she wanted to or not.

This priest that testified in this case isn't following what his bishop said. go to

http://www.priestsforlife.org/

to see what the bishop and the pope has said. In the Catholic faith, the pope and the Archbishops and bishops are the policy makers, not one priest, who quoted a pope 50 years ago.

I attened a prayer service on Tuesday nite at the St Paul Cathedral in St. Paul, MN where our Archbishop, who is on the libral slanting side said the tube should not have been removed.The Florida bishops also said this.

I don't totally understand the political rules in this case, but our constitutuion states the right to life as a truth. Natural law states a right to life. I, and others have writtened to congress about Terri's rights. It's not just about Terri, as many have already said. This is about preserving the life of less than perfect humans, the disabled, the old.

Keep up the good work Stevilynn,

boxermom

Tweety, BSN, RN · Mar 25, 2005

Steph. nothing new in that article, but yes interesting. (Not that someone whose so close to an advisor to the Schindlers would be biased in anyway. :))

Scarlett, what would be the point "once and for all" when it's been done plenty of times over the last 14 years "once and for all". Remember this just didn't happen, but has been ongoing for years.

bugsbee · Mar 25, 2005

boxermom

Its is a real sad case. But its not for the courts to decide. The governor of florida should be protecting the citizens of that state against sex predators since they just had a little girl killed. I'm convinced she is in a vegatative state and that is what the majority of the medical believe. And the people who stated terri got herself in this situation by not eating are correct she should not be force fed. I wonder if her parents are feeling great guilt after all she was bulemic while living with them not her husband.

ScarlettRN · Mar 25, 2005

Steph. nothing new in that article, but yes interesting. (Not that someone whose so close to an advisor to the Schindlers would be biased in anyway. :))
Scarlett, what would be the point "once and for all" when it's been done plenty of times over the last 14 years "once and for all". Remember this just didn't happen, but has been ongoing for years.

Tweety, because this is now a circus in the worst possible way, and because so many question the veracity of her dx, I guess it would be a way of presenting current information to the world. Maybe because I have a deep-seated desire to please everyone....is that a nurse thing? :chuckle

I really really have a problem with this case, for reasons I have not seen mentioned by anyone else. The EMOTION, the hysterical, passionate, blind emotion is disconcerting to me. Part of it is because this has been going on for literal years and Terri's parents took this public and I see that as a power play. The biggest part is the language that is being used by both sides, but mainly by the Schindler camp. Emotionally charged words, used for the purpose of evoking a certain emotion, and personally, I think they are manipulative words.

Another problem is with the politics that are being played with this. I don't question the motives of the GOP. What I have a problem with is that, as a Christian conservative, I have heard for the past decade or more that the liberals are emotion driven and that conservatives are the reasoned, level headed ones. Now, with this case, I hear people who are on the Schindler side from whom I have heard this mantra of reason preached from over the years, on the brink of hysteria. And ignorant of the basic facts, from BOTH angles....the simple uncolored facts. I have been personally attacked by people with whom I share common philosophy because I am not passionately advocating that the tube be put in. In fact, I am embarassed and annoyed by this whole thing. As I said, Schiavo isn't the devil and the Schindlers are not angels.

Soooo, taking a deep breath, I wish to get a current diagnosis that is cold and clinical for ME.

caroladybelle, BSN, RN · Mar 25, 2005

I wish the courts had ruled in Terri Schiavo's favor, even as I accept the fact that they have not and likely will not.

As far as many of us are concerned, the courts DID rule in her favor.

SmilingBluEyes · Mar 25, 2005

I said I would shut up about Shiavo and I will. But I just am chiming in to say I agree 10000% with the posts by caroleladybelle.

Tweety, BSN, RN · Mar 25, 2005

Tweety, because this is now a circus in the worst possible way, and because so many question the veracity of her dx, I guess it would be a way of presenting current information to the world.

I hear what you're saying and I understand completely. It's just that this is a private matter, for the family, doctors, and judicial system. The public should have not been drug into it imo. Of course we all have an interest in cases such as these, but nothing new has come to light since the last time they took out the tube and put it back in. Enough already.

Peachy720 · Mar 25, 2005

I question his motives.
Last time she was removed from food/water, her parents wanted a priest to giver her last rites. The husband refused.
There has been a sworn statement from Terri's nurse that her husband came into the room and asked, "is the b*tch dead yet?" and "I am going to be rich!"

I also question his motives.

I had no idea about the last rites and his statements.

All I have in my mind is the fact that he has been wanting to re-marry for the longest time.

I just think it should be up to her parents, and not this sham of a "husband."

JMHO. I hope her pain and suffering is over soon. She has been used as a guinea pig by all involved.

caroladybelle, BSN, RN · Mar 25, 2005

I just think it should be up to her parents, and not this sham of a "husband."

So Terri's desires do not figure into it at all?

Peachy720 · Mar 25, 2005

So Terri's desires do not figure into it at all?

Of course they do. Terri is what matters in this case.

However, I have been led to believe that the only proof that Terri does not want to be kept alive by any means is the words of Michael and his family. Has their been any further proof? (Sorry, midterm week here, so haven't been following it as closely)