Artificial feeding-Terri Schiavo

ktwlpn, LPN · Apr 2, 2005

As I said before, I am not trying to change your mind about what you believe, Roland. I'm just trying to comprehend all of the things you're saying outright as well as implying.
So let me make the attempt to restate what you've already said:
You believe that Mike Schiavo attempted to murder his wife and ultimately prevailed and succeeded. He was that much smarter than all those investigators, yet so much sicker psychologically than we imagine. He has been under close scrutiny at his job, in his schooling, visiting his wife, and at his home over the past 15 years, but he was so much more clever than all those people?
You're certainly entitled to your opinion.
You imply that corruption in Hospice, the courts, the governor's office, the police, the hospital ER, the legislature and in the Medical Examiner's office caused the facts of the case to be completely disregarded.
Quite a stretch, even if you're really cynical about authority. Though I sincerely think you owe us Floridians an apology, just on general principles, after having bashed nearly all of our institutions.
You believe that Terri Schiavo was able to take in food and water by mouth, based on the medical expertise (or unrealistic hopes) of her parents. When she hadn't eaten or drunk anything in 15 years. When in fact, had anyone succeeded in giving her that symbolic glass of water that those children were arrested trying to serve, she would probably have then died from aspiration pneumonia.
But back to what you've been saying: Have I got it right, or did I miss anything?
In short, you feel that the law failed Terri and her family because she didn't die the way you approve of morally. Which made you angry enough to spew false accusations and speculate negatively about everyone even remotely connected to this case.
Is that what your posts are really all about at this point?
Because it does look that way from this corner.
And if that is truly the way you feel, I can respect that. But you need to understand that you are saying some things that are sounding a little farfetched at this point, IMO, and I hope you can understand and respect the rest of us by refraining from accusing all those people of conspiring to kill an innocent person.
OK?

:yelclap: FANTASTIC POST!!! Many of the opposing views I have read on this thread have been rife with mis-information....So many are eager to believe everything they read or hear especially if it concurs with their opinion but they totally disregard the evidence in this case.The evidence that was heard in VARIOUS courts NUMEROUS times over the years....

Roland · Apr 2, 2005

:yelclap: FANTASTIC POST!!! Many of the opposing views I have read on this thread have been rife with mis-information....So many are eager to believe everything they read or hear especially if it concurs with their opinion but they totally disregard the evidence in this case.The evidence that was heard in VARIOUS courts NUMEROUS times over the years....

What I personally believe is that inertia killed Terri combined with a desire by a few to advance a culture where those at the end of life are terminated. By that I mean that initially few suspected that foul play was involved (the bone scan done a year after her collapse didn't come to light until 2003). The paramedics/police report was to be routed to homicide, but she didn't die so no investigation was ever done (again NO POLICE INVESTIGATION WAS EVER DONE, EVER). Years later when the case was litigated in Judge Greer's court the issue was not whether or not Terri had been assaulted, but what should happen to her now. Attempts by the Schiavo's attorney to depose past witnesses on this issue (such a co-workers who said that Terri had been in a severe fight with her husband the day before her collaspe) were denied because Judge Greer (perhaps rightly so in a strictly legal sense) asserted the purpose of the hearing was to see what should be done with Terri now . In addition, the local prosecutor said even if there was an assault he would not prosecute since the statute of limitations would have expired for any crime (which is true except for murder, which since Terri was still alive wasn't a possible charge).

The complaints of nurse Iyer supported by nurse Law were never acted upon and were seen "in isolation". That is to say they were not considered in the context of the mysterious nature of Terri's initial collapse and the previous bone scan showing trauma. Yes, I disagree with the manner of Mrs. Schiavo's death, because an otherwise physiologically stable woman was starved to death. Furthermore, the Judges final order that prohibited food and water made no exceptions for attempted oral hydration or nutrition. This was in the face of a federal law which called for de novo review of the case (meaning that the facts were to be re-examined by the courts not just the law). A Congressional subpoena was dismissed out of hand, and a state law (previously passed by the Florida legislature) was declaired invalid. Not only do I personally believe that Terri was murdered by her husband and ultimately the State, BUT I believe that our entire system of government was compromised. The divisions of government are to be seperate but equal in this case we had the legislative, and executive branches not only trumped, but in the case of the subpoena actually ignored. We are indeed in danger of becoming an oligarchy ruled by a few men in black.

Personally, had I been a worker at that hospice I would have quit before cooperating with the order to starve someone. Furthermore, I seem to remember the ANA stating that nurses who participate in legal executions of murderer's should face possible sanction. How is this different? Make no mistake, removing someone's food and water is just as effective an execution method as a lethal injection or bullet to the head. If she could not feel pain then why was morphine given? If you say "just in case she could feel pain", then I say "just in case" she could feel pain" that she shouldn't have been starved to death.

Stitchie · Apr 2, 2005

Actually, I think that her trust fund paid most of the expenses (from the 2.5 million dollar award that Michael sought so that he could take care of Terri the rest of her life) and that the hospice donated the rest (George Felos sat on the board of directors at the Woodside Hospice). Remember also that the parents offered to take care of Mrs. Schiavo themselves and pay all of the expenses. In addition, groups such as the listeners of the Glenn Beck radio show http://www.glennbeck.com offered to pay Michael almost seven million dollars to give up custody of Terri (I personally pledged $200.00 to the effort). At one point the Schindlers had even offered Michael $700,000.00 to give up custody of Terri to them. Either he loved her very much and really did want her wishes to be carried out OR he had something to hide/ and or a vendetta to see fufilled. I wonder if Glenn Beck could be persuaded to offer Michael a million dollars (from listener pledges) to take a polygraph test from a reputable examiner. I had to take them in the Navy and they are no big deal. It would certainly lesson my concerns.

Oh come on. Millions of dollars vs a vendetta? I don't know about you, Roland, but 7 million would make me forget my most venomous vendettas pretty darn quick.

This poor woman died. She had no quality of life and it is cruel to keep someone breathing and calling them 'alive'. Her brain was gone. Her personality was gone. She was gone. Let her rest in peace, let her husband, who, I believe, has done a wonderful job of protecting her, grieve and get on with his life.

The media is great at hyping stories to get your attention. Do yourself a favor; read a couple of different newspapers, kill your TV, and form your own opinion on this case. As a nurse it is appalling to see someone kept 'alive' for 15 years (that's as long as my mother has been dead, so I know, and mark, every minute) just to keep a family feud going or whatever was happening between the parents and the husband.

Stitchie · Apr 2, 2005

She had an eating disorder; it caused her collapse. Her parents may have been responsible for that and have since acted out of guilt.

I had an incredibly loud, angry fight with my husband last night, but no police were called, no one was physically injured, and certainly, if I fall off the stairs, no one will blame him for my PVS.

No one but those directly involved in a marriage can EVER know the truth. Please let this poor family grieve and let this woman rest at last.

Roland · Apr 2, 2005

Oh come on. Millions of dollars vs a vendetta? I don't know about you, Roland, but 7 million would make me forget my most venomous vendettas pretty darn quick.
This poor woman died. She had no quality of life and it is cruel to keep someone breathing and calling them 'alive'. Her brain was gone. Her personality was gone. She was gone. Let her rest in peace, let her husband, who, I believe, has done a wonderful job of protecting her, grieve and get on with his life.
The media is great at hyping stories to get your attention. Do yourself a favor; read a couple of different newspapers, kill your TV, and form your own opinion on this case. As a nurse it is appalling to see someone kept 'alive' for 15 years (that's as long as my mother has been dead, so I know, and mark, every minute) just to keep a family feud going or whatever was happening between the parents and the husband.

Millions of older and handicapped people might meet your definition of having no quality of life (hell half my friends say that I meet that definition). As to her personality being gone THAT is a matter that is much in dispute. The parents had over thirty medical doctors who signed affidavits that they did not believe that she was in a PVS. Yes, most of them only examined Terri via video clips ( because Michael would not allow Terri to be seen by doctors to make these kind of assessments except for those approved by him). As for media hype, I think that vast majority of the media is on your side.

Remember, that Hitler's first euthanasia was a severely disabled baby who would have certainly met your definition: "The father of a deformed child wrote to the Fuhrer with a request to be allowed to take the life of this child or this creature. Hitler ordered me to take care of this case. The child had been born blind, seemed to be idiotic, and a leg and parts of the arm were missing. Germany's Culture Minister, Christina Weiss, said that the report had been drawn up to confront the truth and "restore some dignity to the victims". As was the case with many other victims, Gerhard Kretschmar's cause of death was recorded not as euthanasia but as "heart failure", according to documents at the church where he was buried.

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Hitler/euthanasia_program/Telegraph121000.html .

allnurses Guide · Apr 2, 2005

That "quality of life" comment scares me. I don't believe in gauging what a person's life is worth by the so-called "quality" of that life.

steph

Roland · Apr 2, 2005

Really? I thought it was requested by the family (both Mr. Shaivo and the Schindlers). Very few hospice patients get an autopsy without the requests from the family. But I can see why the ME would order a mandatory autopsy in this case.

Actually, Michael Schiavo went to court to Judge Greer to get an order for a cremation several years ago after the bone scan (which showed multiple, healed fractures) came to light. He may or may not have realized that Florida law usually requires an autopsy when a cremation is requested. Initially, it was reported that he opposed and autopsy and then that he supported one.

NurseFirst · Apr 2, 2005

Have to agree with Asher on the last statement. I absolutely do not want the government deciding on my medical care. Suppose you were diagnosed with ______ (fill in blank with terminal condition of your choice). After all the consults and medical advice, you decide to forego any treatment and let nature take its course. But good old Uncle Sam steps in and decides that you will go through every treatment, surgery, etc prescribed by a doctor. I'm not saying I agree with the husband or that he is without fault, but he is her next of kin. My wife and I have discussed this and similar circumstances. She knows what I would or would not want and I know what her wishes are. Even though we have not drafted a living will or advanced directives, we do know what we want. I hope the Shiavo case causes more people to discuss their wishes with their family-not just their spouse-and draft libving will/advanced directives.

Well, given the alternative between the government making me "stay alive" against my wishes vs. having the government take my life against my wishes, I know which way I would prefer the government to err.

NurseFirst

allnurses Guide · Apr 2, 2005

Originally Posted by shadowflightnurse

Have to agree with Asher on the last statement. I absolutely do not want the government deciding on my medical care. Suppose you were diagnosed with ______ (fill in blank with terminal condition of your choice). After all the consults and medical advice, you decide to forego any treatment and let nature take its course. But good old Uncle Sam steps in and decides that you will go through every treatment, surgery, etc prescribed by a doctor. I'm not saying I agree with the husband or that he is without fault, but he is her next of kin. My wife and I have discussed this and similar circumstances. She knows what I would or would not want and I know what her wishes are. Even though we have not drafted a living will or advanced directives, we do know what we want. I hope the Shiavo case causes more people to discuss their wishes with their family-not just their spouse-and draft libving will/advanced directives.

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

But this case has nothing to do with regular medical care. It was an extreme case where a person left no legal instructions. And it had to do with what people think is the direct killing of a healthy but brain damaged adult.

Pulling a feeding tube is not considered "heroic" lifesaving intervention to some of us but simply feeding someone.

But when you think about it, due to all the bureacracy involved in medicine today, the "government" and insurance companies DO ALREADY have alot to say over what kind of treatment you get.

steph

caroladybelle, BSN, RN · Apr 2, 2005

Actually, Michael Schiavo went to court to Judge Greer to get an order for a cremation several years ago after the bone scan (which showed multiple, healed fractures) came to light. He may or may not have realized that Florida law usually requires an autopsy when a cremation is requested.

Really??????????????

I have had dozens of patients that have requested cremation, yet none to my knowledge have required autopsy per the state.

Autopsy/no autopsy in Florida is either requested by the family or required by the medical examiner at time of death, related to circumstances of the death. There is no question on that form for cremation/burial. Thus, the decision is made for/against autopsy prior to knowing whether the patient will be cremated or not. And as postmortem care is either rendered/not given at that time, depending on whether autopsy is ordered, it would very difficult to do a proper legally binding autopsy, after appropriate post mortem care is rendered.

Added note:

After reviewing Florida statute 406.11, there are 12 criteria of death that require attention by the medical examiner. In addition, the ME must review all cases where a body may be lost to followup (cremation/transport out of state/burial at sea) and approve of them before the cremation/burial at sea/transport out of state occurs. Several over these issues are present in the Schiavo case, necessitating ME review.

To my knowledge, ME review does not require autopsy in and of itself. It merely requires the ME review the data and decide if an autopsy is also warranted, prior to loss of the body to followup.

Given the circumstances, I can imagine that the ME would prefer an autopsy to "clear the air".. Certainly, Michael Schiavo's permit also aids in that.

______________________________________________________________

Though there are conspiracy theorists that will not believe the evidence, no matter what................

caroladybelle, BSN, RN · Apr 2, 2005

As I said before, I am not trying to change your mind about what you believe, Roland. I'm just trying to comprehend all of the things you're saying outright as well as implying.
So let me make the attempt to restate what you've already said:
You believe that Mike Schiavo attempted to murder his wife and ultimately prevailed and succeeded. He was that much smarter than all those investigators, yet so much sicker psychologically than we imagine. He has been under close scrutiny at his job, in his schooling, visiting his wife, and at his home over the past 15 years, but he was so much more clever than all those people?
You're certainly entitled to your opinion.
You imply that corruption in Hospice, the courts, the governor's office, the police, the hospital ER, the legislature and in the Medical Examiner's office caused the facts of the case to be completely disregarded.
Quite a stretch, even if you're really cynical about authority. Though I sincerely think you owe us Floridians an apology, just on general principles, after having bashed nearly all of our institutions.
You believe that Terri Schiavo was able to take in food and water by mouth, based on the medical expertise (or unrealistic hopes) of her parents. When she hadn't eaten or drunk anything in 15 years. When in fact, had anyone succeeded in giving her that symbolic glass of water that those children were arrested trying to serve, she would probably have then died from aspiration pneumonia.
But back to what you've been saying: Have I got it right, or did I miss anything?
In short, you feel that the law failed Terri and her family because she didn't die the way you approve of morally. Which made you angry enough to spew false accusations and speculate negatively about everyone even remotely connected to this case.
Is that what your posts are really all about at this point?
Because it does look that way from this corner.
And if that is truly the way you feel, I can respect that. But you need to understand that you are saying some things that are sounding a little farfetched at this point, IMO, and I hope you can understand and respect the rest of us by refraining from accusing all those people of conspiring to kill an innocent person.
OK?

Excellent post. My compliments.

caroladybelle, BSN, RN · Apr 2, 2005

Tweety - I completely understand having the family leave to do comfort care when you think there is incontinence . . maybe that was it. But she died about 15 minutes after her brother left . . . I dunno - I think at that stage in the whole sorry mess that her brother might have been a bit testy due to the stress of watching his sister die.

I have known grieving families that have injured staff and each other, at a loved one's bedside.

I have known family members that used their loved one's illness, to stay overnight and steal from employee's cars and steal from other patients.

I have known family members of a dying patient threaten the lives/peace of other patients and their visitors.

Being "testy" is not an acceptable reason to disrupt the peace of a hospice and behave badly. And, no, we do not need to understand it...our duty is to maintain the peace, care and safety of all concerned. And everyone in a hospital/hospice setting is probably "testy " and stressed...it does not excuse disruptive behavior.

If, for whatever reason, Schiavo's brother behaved in a manner that required security/police presence, then he had no business at the bedside of a dying woman.