How do you feel about this? Strongly enough to call your Congressmen?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/17/schiavo.ap/index.html

I've followed this for a long time. I'm inclined to let her live, divorce from her husband and allow her parents to take over guardianship. (which is what the parents want)

The husband has a new family. He claims she never wanted to be a vegetable. How do you feel? What would you do in this situation?

I think the parents are completely sick. I believe the husband. He was offered a million bucks by a religious organization to let her stay plugged in but he refused. I think it's pretty obvious that he's trying to get her unplugged because it's truly what she told him that she wanted if anything like that ever happened to her.

I originally thought as you did Chip, but she isn't really in a vegetative state.

She does seem to respond and move on her own. She doesn't require life support.

The only medical requirement she has is a feeding tube. There is speculation that she could swallow and eat with proper therapy to do so, but her husband forbade any type of rehabilitative therapy 10 years ago. Removing her tube will begin a slow process of starvation for her.

Basically we have a woman who has been denied any type of rehabilitative therapy and whose only real disorder is not being able to eat on her own. Is that enough to kill her?

I still have reservations. Her $1.2million trust is also an interesting aspect of the story.

The woman has no cerebral cortex. She has basically a skull filled with spinal fluid instead of a brain. She is not alive in any real sense of the word, nor has she been for the past 15 years.

Plus there's a larger picture to consider. A spouse should have more rights than a parent should have in these kind of decisions. I find it so ironic that the same people who defend the sanctity of marriage will turn around and strip the rights away from a husband. These people are so against people who choose to die, yet they'll happily roast a criminal in an electric chair.

We can't ask the woman in the coma what her choice in this matter is. But we do know that she made one very important choice...she chose this man to be her lifemate. He is the one who should make this decision.

where is the pie option???

Hmmm! There might be some aspects of this story I don't know about. She's conscious? The papers, even this news story, say it's a vegatative state. Also, who does this $1.2 million go to in the event of her death? I would assume the husband...but I hadn't heard about any great wealth involved in this.

Whatever the case, however, there's *way* too much neo-con religious-political rhetoric being thrown about on this issue...and the Federal government is overstepping its bounds to intercede in this case. Why do I get the feeling we'll have President Bush issue an Executive Order if the ploy from Congress fails?

She's not in a coma --she's in a vegitative state. She has no body movement except for involuntary reactions. She's living in a capacity somewhere between an earthworm and a fish.

Every doctor that has looked at her has said she is in a complete vehetative state. There is also the fact that she told a few people not just her husband that if she were ever like that to let her die.

The situation is an awful one for all involved and could have been avoided if someone took a half hour or so to draw up a living will stating that you don't wish to be kept alive artificially.


I suggest anyone that has that thought put it in writing now to spare your loved ones later.


I feel for the parents because this is a parents worst nightmare but even they have to see that she is not what they knew to be their daughter.

Her husband has spent at least that much in legal bills over the years fighting this supposedly. Even President bush can't stop this with an executive order it would be overturned as was Jeb bush's try at stopping this.

I've been following this as well and I still haven't made a decision.

I know I would rather be put to "sleep" myself ...

It's incredibly difficult to say. I would say, let her die, if she is indeed in this vegetable state. 15 long years for everyone. Let her go.

Oh, I didn't say it would stick, Talen...just that I wouldn't put it past Bush to do as much delaying as possible. I'm sure this will go to the Surpreme Court.

So much for less government involvement in people's lives.

I agree with Chip. I think her parents are wacked. Also the money from the trust fund is almost completely gone and was used to care for her and for legal bills.

I know that if it were me, and for some reason they could not find my living will, I would want my husband to abide by my wishes and I would never want to exist in such a state.

Considering that her husband has someone else in his life and a child from that relationship he must feel very strongly about following through with her wishes.

He could have married another person, taken half his wifes trust early on for his pain and suffering as a care giver, turned her over to her parents and been long gone. Instead he has fought battle after battle and even turned down a large sum of money (a bribe from the right to lifers) to abide with what he says she would have wanted.

I'm really pissed that the state of Florida blocked it the first time. The recent ruling to allow the husband to decide (despite extreme political pressure) has restored some of the former respect I once had for the legal system.

Wow, Neehai. That's the closest to a conservative opinion I've ever seen from you.

Well, I thought I had more conservative opinion. Then I learned that balancing the budget wasn't a conservative value.

If they're going to kill her, why aren't they talking about lethal injection or something? Starving someone to death seems pretty cruel too isn't it? How much would that suck?

I've no idea what "should" be done, but death by starvation? Hmm

I've been following this case for many months now.

It's pretty sad what they've put this poor woman through.. vegetable or not. From last minute tube reinsertion to depriving her of freaking religous rights. I think at this point, her husband should just let go of her. I honestly have no idea what motivates him.

Is all this legal crap worth it? How can it be, after so long... I think her parents deserve a crack at taking care of her again, since her husband is pretty shitty at it.

Lethal Injection would mean they're officially killing her. Starvation is merely an aesthetic. A Pontius Pilate approach. "Hey, if she can't feed herself, we'll just let nature take care of her." They don't feel so responsible then.

This is disturbing a lot of people in FL - does it make this a "gateway" to forced euthanasia?

Exactly--but how different are the two *really*? Not very...

In fact, lethal injection is not as cruel.

Starvation is a very nasty way to die but as was said earlier any other way would be murder.

It seems congress is trying to get a voice vote through on the issue and have Bush sign it today ...but I think that would get struck down later by the courts as well.

If her husband were doing this just for the 50K that she has remaining in her trust, then why didn't he accept the 1 million?

Could it possibly be because she really expressed a desire not to be kept alive like this to him and he cares enough about her to honor her wishes? Is that so improbable?

Her father has said in court that if necessary, he would allow them to amputate all of her limbs if that kept her alive. What kind of parent is this?

It's sad that the only way they can allow her to die is to remove the feeding tube. Nevertheless, what business is this of the states or the federal governments? The courts looked at the case over and over again and has still determined that her husband has a legal right to decide. period.

If you were in her position and you had seriously asked your spouse to never allow this to happen would you want the government interfering?

What happens when the same people arguing to keep this woman alive start to argue agains the "DNR" that people have signed themselves by saying that it is sucide and that the person has no right to make that decision for themselves?

.

I don't think the question has been posed as this. We are Humans a simple race that will do anything to survive. However, that typically has been the decision of the individual.

Doctors have the means or ability to prolong "Living Functions" such as heartbeat, Breathing etc.

But shouldn't the real question be can that person survive? If brain functions have ceased to exist for these sort of functions and taking an individual off of a machine ceases those functions then what is the point of continued existance. The human brain is a very fragile system and if part of its damaged to the point that it can no longer keep the body alive due to its damage then whats the point of continuing keeping it alive.

Please dont get me wrong their are quite a few "Coma" victims that are only monitored by machines but these individuals are "Surviving" on their own. Thier brains still functioning by keeping the person breathing and their bodily functions going. This sort of individual there is a possibility of hope for as those functions may be fully regained with conciousness.

However, a person in this womans state are in essence dead. The brain mass that controls bodily functions has shut down. No matter of feeding, Keeping the heart pumping and the air flowing is going to change that. While I respect the husbands decision to "Pull" lifesupport if thats the case she will die of her own volition due to her brains inability to keep her bodily functions regulated.

However, Pulling a feeding tube if this woman is surviving without any other support is wrong. In a way its like witholding food from a sick child and it starving to death because its parents thought it would never get better so just didnt waste the food on it.

As human beings its our duty if their are signs of life without the aid of mechanical devices to maintain that individual. Give them the basics that the human body needs to survive such as Food/Shelter and Water. If by providing those 3 Items the individual survives and eventually wakes up then we have done our duty. If that individual though provided with those three die due to not being on a heart machine or a breathing machine for an extended period. Then it was fate that they went on anyway.

So in summary two simple points.

#1 if the individual can survive without machines to breath and live then it is our duty to provide the basics Shelter and Food.

#2 if the individual cannot survive without machines then providing the two basic needs will be moot anyway as they will die.

Shadow

Wow, Shadow. I had some pretty strong feelings about this issue - but after reading your post in its entirety.... my mind is somewhat changed on the subject.

I think I was confusing "life support" with a "feeding tube". For some reason, I thought this woman's basic functions were being kept alive by machines. If the only automated function is a feeding tube... I have to agree - its wrong to take that away.

The sticky point - is the woman is brain-dead. But again... if her body is functioning on its own, and simply needs to be fed... I'm not sure its right to withold food from that human being.


Travis

Well she has now been subpoened to appear before a House Judiciary Committee. This now prevents any actions that would make that impossible, including the removal of her feeding tube.

They removed her feeding tube!!

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=1&u=/ap/20050318/ap_on_re_us/brain_damaged_woman&sid=84439559