TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Feeding tube ordered back inside vegetative Florida woman
Pages (3): [1] 2 3 »

Feeding tube ordered back inside vegetative Florida woman

quote:

TALLAHASSEE -- Lawmakers sent Gov. Jeb Bush a bill Tuesday that will give him the power to order a feeding tube reinserted into a brain-damaged woman who is at the center of one of the nation's longest and most bitter right-to-die battles. Bush said he will immediately sign the legislation _ a victory for Terri Schiavo's parents, who have been fighting for several years to keep her alive. Her husband, Michael Schiavo, says she would rather die. Schiavo's feeding tube was removed last Wednesday after a court ruling in Schiavo's favor. Doctors have said the 39-year-old woman will die within a week to 10 days without food and water. Lawmakers were already called to the Capitol for a special session on economic development when they decided to intervene in the case. Bush said he did not think lawmakers were motivated by politics. ``This is a response to a tragic situation.'' Bush said. ``People are responding to cries for help and I think it's legitimate.'' Sen. Tom Lee said Schiavo would ``essentially starve ... to death'' without intervention from lawmakers and the governor. ``It's a pretty awful way to go,'' said Lee, a Republican. Opponents said government was stepping in where it had no business being. ``I do not believe the governor of Florida should be making a decision of life and death rather than the next of kin,'' said Sen. Steven Geller, a Democrat. The House approved the bill 73-24 after the Senate passed it 23-15. George Felos, a lawyer for the woman's husband, asked a judge to stop Bush even before he received the bill. A hearing was scheduled for Tuesday. Earlier in Tampa, U.S. District Judge Steven Merryday denied a request by an advocacy group that Schiavo be kept alive so it could investigate whether removal of the tube was abusive. Merryday wrote that federal courts _ other than the U.S. Supreme Court _ are forbidden from interjecting themselves into matters already decided by state courts. He also said the group failed to provide enough evidence to support its request. The bill sent to Bush was designed to be as narrow as possible. It is limited to cases in which the patient left no living will, is in a persistent vegetative state, has had nutrition and hydration tubes removed and where a family member has challenged the removal. Court-appointed doctors have described Schiavo as being in a vegetative state, caused when her heart stopped in 1990 from a suspected chemical imbalance. Bush last week promised the woman's parents that he would help them if he could find a way. The Florida Supreme Court has twice refused to hear the case, and it also has been rejected for review by the U.S. Supreme Court. Last week, a Florida appeals court again refused to block removal of the tube. Felos said he thinks the legislation would be unconstitutional. It is Terri Schiavo's right under the Florida Constitution to not be kept alive artificially, and the courts have affirmed that, he said. Pat Anderson, the attorney for the parents, said she was ``dumbfounded'' by the Legislature's action, although the family had hoped for such help in the wake of continued court defeats. During a two-hour debate in the House, several Democrats argued that the Constitution does not let the Legislature give the governor the power to overrule the courts. ``This bill so oversteps our role it ... turns democracy on its head,'' said Rep. Dan Gelber, a Democrat. But many Republicans and some Democrats said they need to be involved in dire cases where judges might be wrong. ``The Constitution is supposed to protect the people of this state,'' said Rep. Sandy Murman, a Republican from Tampa. ``Who is protecting this girl?''

I've been following this story somewhat, and with respects to this issue, I side with the parents and Jeb Bush. Michael Schiavo is nothing but a money grubbing greedy s.o.b. trying to collect money from a malpractice suit intended for the care of his wife. Give me a break ... he has a a girlfriend with a kid from that gf and another kid on the way. What a tool ... just divorce her and let her parents care of her.

http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/p...6/APN/310161106

AND

http://www.worldrtd.org/Floridawoman3.html

A key line:

quote:

A jury awarded the Schiavos more than $1 million after Michael Schiavo testified that he intended to care for his wife until she dies.

Oh right, I like how he failed to tell the jury how his wife WANTED to die . Fuckin retard can't keep his story straight ...

... oh btw, this comes from a right to die website no less.

Please ... it's not like this girl is in a coma and incapable of any emotions/feelings:

With her mom ... and the courts want to STARVE her to death?????


I spit on bipartisanship, politically motivated actions as evidenced by these democrats who are arguing on the basis of "technicalities" ...

quote:

During a two-hour debate in the House, several Democrats argued that the Constitution does not let the Legislature give the governor the power to overrule the courts

Don't assume that I'm so partisan that I'd disagree with anything done by the Bushes.

/Continue

quote:

Originally posted by DaveSaenz Don't assume that I'm so partisan that I'd disagree with anything done by the Bushes. /Continue

Lol I didn't. I figured you were posting the story for discussion since you didn't post your viewpoint

My comments were commentary rather than criticism (against you).

She has been a vegetable since 1990. What possible justification is there for keeping her alive? I can't disagree that her husband's motives are suspect, but I have seen few examples which better illustrate the perversity of the "life at any cost" mentality perpetuated by the Christian population.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter She has been a vegetable since 1990. What possible justification is there for keeping her alive? I can't disagree that her husband's motives are suspect, but I have seen few examples which better illustrate the perversity of the "life at any cost" mentality perpetuated by the Christian population.

Ummm perhaps HER desire to be kept alive? It's her husband's word against her parent's and clearly her husband is less than objective. Furthermore, there's indications that the husband LIED about her telling him that she wanted to die in such a state as evidenced by his former girlfriend's testimony. As for possible justification for keeping her alive ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3052433.stm

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Ummm perhaps HER desire to be kept alive? It's her husband's word against her parent's and clearly her husband is less than objective. Furthermore, there's indications that the husband LIED about her telling him that she wanted to die in such a state as evidenced by his former girlfriend's testimony. As for possible justification for keeping her alive ...

We can't confirm that she has any desire to be kept alive, or that she's even capable of understanding her situation. Such a justification would be purely conjecture.

quote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3052433.stm

Nothing's impossible, but realistically her chances of even so much as speaking again are microscopic. It seems to me that her parents are in denial of the fact that she is already for all practical purposes, dead, and are clinging to the unrealistic hope that she will somehow spontaneously recover. In my opinion, they are just using her so that they do not have to face the reality of her passing. No one should be forced to undergo such indignity.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter We can't confirm that she has any desire to be kept alive, or that she's even capable of understanding her situation. Such a justification would be purely conjecture.

Nor is there any confirmation that she had any desire to die. If she put a clause in her will saying she would like to die in such a situation, then I would be the first to sign on board. However, she did no such thing and we should not ASSume that she wished to be 'mercifully' put down. Why not make similar assumptions for all the loonies in mental institutions and all the retards incapable of thought?

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Nor is there any confirmation that she had any desire to die. If she put a clause in her will saying she would like to die in such a situation, then I would be the first to sign on board. However, she did no such thing and we should not ASSume that she wished to be 'mercifully' put down. Why not make similar assumptions for all the loonies in mental institutions and all the retards incapable of thought?

Now that you mention it...

I don't know the specifics of this case - so perhaps I'm not in any position to comment - but, for me, the answer is simple: if the woman has said she wants to die, she should be allowed to. If she hasn't said that she wants to die, then it is not for her husband or Right to Die advocates to make the decision for her.

There is still something perverse about all this though: would Jeb Bush be pushing his "right to life" stance so hard if it were, say, a JW refusing a life-saving blood transfusion? Would he argue that it is in the best interests of a patient to stay alive when the issue ceases to be a "moral" issue and becomes instead an issue of deeply felt religious - particularly Christian - beliefs?

heh first the government is controlling if you get to give birth or not, now they get to decide weather or not to keep you alive. seriously where are those people who always bitch about the government getting into your personal affiars, I guess it only applies if its a sin, like gays

anyway a simple solution for this is to have sticker on your drivers license or ID that states weather you want to kept alive if you end up in a coma where doctors believe you'll never get out or have some serious injuries that what make living a hell, kinda like the organ donor thing. I would actually be the first to use this option, I'm sorry but I dont to be paying an arm and leg monthly just to have my idle body alive.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade I don't know the specifics of this case - so perhaps I'm not in any position to comment - but, for me, the answer is simple: if the woman has said she wants to die, she should be allowed to. If she hasn't said that she wants to die, then it is not for her husband or Right to Die advocates to make the decision for her.

She didn't.

quote:

There is still something perverse about all this though: would Jeb Bush be pushing his "right to life" stance so hard if it were, say, a JW refusing a life-saving blood transfusion? Would he argue that it is in the best interests of a patient to stay alive when the issue ceases to be a "moral" issue and becomes instead an issue of deeply felt religious - particularly Christian - beliefs?

I get the funny feeling that the issue of religion is being interjected to taint the issue at hand. Remove religion in its entirety. If she and everyone around her is an aetheist the issue still stands that she should be kept alive. The burden of proof still resides on the husband to proof the fact that she wanted to die. Until he does so, her inherenent right to life is a right that cannot be changed by the state or anybody else for that matter. What's a JW? With respect to the blood transfusion, the state cannot force treatment upon citizens (with the possible exception of minors). Therefore if whatever a JW is, personally not a third party, refuses life saving treatment then the hospital and the state must respect that desire.

quote:

heh first the government is controlling if you get to give birth or not, now they get to decide weather or not to keep you alive. seriously where are those people who always bitch about the government getting into your personal affiars, I guess it only applies if its a sin, like gays

If you're arguing from that standpoint than you should be happy with the state's decision to interfere. Once again the PATIENT is not the party looking to terminate life, a third party is seeking to make that decision FOR the patient. The state believes that that third party does not have the right to make that decision for the patient especially since the third party stands to BENEFIT from that decision.

quote:

I'm sorry but I dont to be paying an arm and leg monthly just to have my idle body alive

That's your right ... just as it's your right to live should you choose to do so. If your parents wanted to collect a $1 million insurance policy on your death should they have the right to speak for you???

Occ-

Your argument stems from the fact that the third party (her husband) is a biased viewpoint in the matter, considering what he has to gain. I do agree with you here. But theoretically, if he had nothing to gain, would you still disagree with taking her off her feeding tube? I'm sorry, but I also see Jeb Bush being a little bit of a biased party, being somewhat of a hard-nosed Christian of sorts, as Renegade alluded to. What if an outside unbiased party mentioned that her husband had a right to take her off the feeding tube? Would you disagree with them?

Basically, what I'm getting at is somewhat different than what you are arguing: do you agree with keeping someone alive in a vegetative, comatose state with very little brain activity? I personally don't see this as humane whatsoever to the vegetable person. In this particular case, however, there is somewhat of a sense of cruelty - starving one to death. I think this is an interesting case to argue right to life questions.

Incidentally, I glossed over the article on CNN that said the lawyers believe what Jeb is doing is unconstitutional. Any merit to that that you know of?

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Occ- Your argument stems from the fact that the third party (her husband) is a biased viewpoint in the matter, considering what he has to gain. I do agree with you here. But theoretically, if he had nothing to gain, would you still disagree with taking her off her feeding tube? I'm sorry, but I also see Jeb Bush being a little bit of a biased party, being somewhat of a hard-nosed Christian of sorts, as Renegade alluded to. What if an outside unbiased party mentioned that her husband had a right to take her off the feeding tube? Would you disagree with them?

If he had nothing to gain than he STILL shouldn't have the right to determine her fate. If the patient did not make any prior indication that they would want to die in such a situation then the state nor a third party has the right to terminate that patient's life. The fact that there is so much incriminating evidence that A) the patient made no such claims that she would like to terminate her life and B) the husband is seeking that right for personal gain, simply taints the issue even further. Even if you're married to St. Theresa herself, your right to determine whether you live or die is YOUR decision and no others. If you wanted to die yet made no statements as such to establish that desire and you end up in a coma, tough shit. The state must err on the side of your right to life in the absence of credible determination of your intent.

quote:

Basically, what I'm getting at is somewhat different than what you are arguing: do you agree with keeping someone alive in a vegetative, comatose state with very little brain activity? I personally don't see this as humane whatsoever to the vegetable person. In this particular case, however, there is somewhat of a sense of cruelty - starving one to death. I think this is an interesting case to argue right to life questions.

Yes if that patient wanted to be kept alive in such a state for the hope of future medical breakthroughs, luck, or the hand of God himself lending help.

quote:

Incidentally, I glossed over the article on CNN that said the lawyers believe what Jeb is doing is unconstitutional. Any merit to that that you know of?

Not really clued into the specifics of the court proceedings. It probably is unconstitutional for jeb to act in the manner which he did, however, I think the court's earlier ruling was unconstitutional to give the husband that right to make such a determination.

quote:

I get the funny feeling that the issue of religion is being interjected to taint the issue at hand. Remove religion in its entirety. If she and everyone around her is an aetheist the issue still stands that she should be kept alive.

Obviously the issue of "religion" should have no bearing on the legality or the morality of the decision, but I'm merely invoking religion as an explanation as to why Jeb Bush may be so eager to step in.

JW = Jehovah's Witness, people who generally have religious objections to having foreign substances put into their bodies (such as drugs including asprin), even in life and death situations, as a means of keeping their body "pure" or "clean". In the case of the infusion of blood from another human being into their own bloodstream, the objections are even more vehement. What I'm suggesting is that Jeb Bush's objection to this "mercy killing" is based less on his desire to see the law upheld, than on his desire to see his religious principles upheld (comparisons may be drawn between this case and the case of the Australian Christian politician - the member for my constituency as it happens - who succesfully repealed a euthansia act in another state that had been in place for some two years). I invoked the JWs, because I think that if it had been a scenario where the husband had rejected medical treatment for his wife on the basis that it contradicts their religious beliefs, Bush would be less inclined to step in and fight this battle (far be it from him to want to be wanting to appear to wage a war against the Christian religion).

Ultimately it's all speculation, of course, but I thought it was an intersting parellel to draw.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Not really clued into the specifics of the court proceedings. It probably is unconstitutional for jeb to act in the manner which he did, however, I think the court's earlier ruling was unconstitutional to give the husband that right to make such a determination.

Ahh balance of powers at work.. makes me tear up inside

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Obviously the issue of "religion" should have no bearing on the legality or the morality of the decision, but I'm merely invoking religion as an explanation as to why Jeb Bush may be so eager to step in. JW = Jehovah's Witness, people who generally have religious objections to having foreign substances put into their bodies (such as drugs including asprin), even in life and death situations, as a means of keeping their body "pure" or "clean". In the case of the infusion of blood from another human being into their own bloodstream, the objections are even more vehement. What I'm suggesting is that Jeb Bush's objection to this "mercy killing" is based less on his desire to see the law upheld, than on his desire to see his religious principles upheld (comparisons may be drawn between this case and the case of the Australian Christian politician - the member for my constituency as it happens - who succesfully repealed a euthansia act in another state that had been in place for some two years). I invoked the JWs, because I think that if it had been a scenario where the husband had rejected medical treatment for his wife on the basis that it contradicts their religious beliefs, Bush would be less inclined to step in and fight this battle (far be it from him to want to be wanting to appear to wage a war against the Christian religion). Ultimately it's all speculation, of course, but I thought it was an intersting parellel to draw.

Ah ok, I understand your argument now. Yes it would be interesting to see similar parallels without religion involved. The blood transfusion bit would be a poor parallel however since the state cannot interfere with an individual's desires in that instance. However, I DO know that several states have prosecuted JW's or other religious extremists for refusing to let their children recieve medical treatment who later died from simple, curable conditions. So perhaps all is not hypocritical.

Youre right occrider, the woman isnt deciding, but we still have assisted suicide outlawed.

quote:

Originally posted by rizen Youre right occrider, the woman isnt deciding, but we still have assisted suicide outlawed.

I'm all for euthenasia as long as it is carefully regulated. I read a story a while back of its abuse in Holland. I think certain states (Oregon comes to mind) do allow euthenasia.

I feel that I must side with occrider on this one. If there was no prior indication she wanted to die in such a situation, then she should be kept alive. Especially because breakthroughs in cloning technology might soon lead to replenishing the destroyed brain regions. Besides, she is not experiencing any great pain or suffering so in lack of a better reason, she should not be killed, as she didn't made such a statement before. I'd say people should be forced to explain their positions on such matters to the government so that in case of such scenarios there wouldn't be any space for manipulation.

And yes, Jehova's witnesses are total morons and should be have their children taken away from them.

I currently work in a cancer hospital, and daily I am surrounded by families and patients having to make decisions about what to do in the case of this circumstance. I am also there to see what happens when a patient is allowed to live in a state such as this woman. I would first like to say that calling a person who has been in a vegatative state for 12 years "alive" by any real human standards is rediculous. By purley scientific means, yes she is breathing and going through "the motions." However medically speaking, being alive also includes normal mental function expected for the individual, which she has not had for quite some time.
Moreover, there are three fundamental pinciples that determine both the feasabilty of medical procedures and also the continuance of life in a coma used by medical professionals. First is reversiblity...would the continuation of a coma lead to a reversing of its state. Second is quality of life...would the coma somehow lead to a higher quality of life then at its onset. And lastly is cost...what is the cost to the family and to the health care industry.
I would have to say that looking at this rubric, there is no reason to continue with her feeding tube. There is no technology today, or in the forseeable future that will allow her to gain any semblance of normal human cognitive function. To use this "phantom" technology as a basis her continued existance is ignorant to the state and pace of medical technology. Her quality of life will therefore never improve, which at this point is respoding non-specifically (reflexively) to stimuli and performing lower level physiological functions (metabolic processes, defecation, etc.). And lastly the cost of keeping someone in this condition alive for such a period is incredibly expensive, further draining a health care system already drowning in its own costs.
This woman died twelve years ago, and I'm sorry people can't realize that. What is "alive" today is a set of organs. She will never, using the medicine of our life times, be able to gain any greater function than she has been able to in the past 12 years. I realize it is wonderful to "have hope" that she will someday regain consciousness and have a wonderful life. However this is the stuff of movies and science fiction, and I assure you does not happen in life, especially after 12 years.
I have seen more than my fair share of these individuals and it sickens me to hear debate on this. There is something to be said for having dignity in death, and this woman has been brutally robbed of it. If you feel that the feeding tube should continue I urge you to volunteer for a month or so at an extended care facility with patients in this condition. I would love to hear how you would then feel about this situation.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono I currently work in a cancer hospital, and daily I am surrounded by families and patients having to make decisions about what to do in the case of this circumstance. I am also there to see what happens when a patient is allowed to live in a state such as this woman. I would first like to say that calling a person who has been in a vegatative state for 12 years "alive" by any real human standards is rediculous. By purley scientific means, yes she is breathing and going through "the motions." However medically speaking, being alive also includes normal mental function expected for the individual, which she has not had for quite some time. Moreover, there are three fundamental pinciples that determine both the feasabilty of medical procedures and also the continuance of life in a coma used by medical professionals. First is reversiblity...would the continuation of a coma lead to a reversing of its state. Second is quality of life...would the coma somehow lead to a higher quality of life then at its onset. And lastly is cost...what is the cost to the family and to the health care industry. I would have to say that looking at this rubric, there is no reason to continue with her feeding tube. There is no technology today, or in the forseeable future that will allow her to gain any semblance of normal human cognitive function. To use this "phantom" technology as a basis her continued existance is ignorant to the state and pace of medical technology. Her quality of life will therefore never improve, which at this point is respoding non-specifically (reflexively) to stimuli and performing lower level physiological functions (metabolic processes, defecation, etc.). And lastly the cost of keeping someone in this condition alive for such a period is incredibly expensive, further draining a health care system already drowning in its own costs. This woman died twelve years ago, and I'm sorry people can't realize that. What is "alive" today is a set of organs. She will never, using the medicine of our life times, be able to gain any greater function than she has been able to in the past 12 years. I realize it is wonderful to "have hope" that she will someday regain consciousness and have a wonderful life. However this is the stuff of movies and science fiction, and I assure you does not happen in life, especially after 12 years. I have seen more than my fair share of these individuals and it sickens me to hear debate on this. There is something to be said for having dignity in death, and this woman has been brutally robbed of it. If you feel that the feeding tube should continue I urge you to volunteer for a month or so at an extended care facility with patients in this condition. I would love to hear how you would then feel about this situation.

Despite your experiences, you cannot speak for the woman's desires. She may have very well wanted to die incapacitated as she is, or she may have wanted to keep on fighting with some hope (************ of how feasible that hope is) until she's dead through natural means. Her parents are willing to bear the cost and anguish of care as evidenced by them telling the husband to simply divorce her and let them care for her. The day the state starts to decide the "value" of life and makes a decision for us in whatever incapacitated state we live in is a step backwards in the recognition of our intrinsic rights. It is not up to you to determine whether they are "too miserable" to live.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider until she's dead through natural means.

Natural means? Are we born with feeding tubes? There is nothing natural about being kept alive with a feeding tube. This woman died 12 years ago.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider The day the state starts to decide the "value" of life and makes a decision for us in whatever incapacitated state we live in is a step backwards in the recognition of our intrinsic rights. It is not up to you to determine whether they are "too miserable" to live.

I should also add that as her husband, he is her legal guardian and can, in fact make the decision to allow her natural death. It was not the state or anyone else but the husband that made this choice. It is incredible that due to the media hype hundreds of years of guardian precident could be overturned due to the emotional hysteria of this case. What we are now saying with this new precident is that no matter thier condition, a comatose individual should be allowed to carry on as long as the technology allows it. It is my "intrinsic" right to die a natural death, and also a right of my legal guardian to allow that death should I not be able to make the decision.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.