« Blog Mela | Main | Yaz's Mela »

Well, I haven’t been following the case VERY keenly. But whatever I saw and heard of it, I didn’t like the way she died. It seemed like MURDER. I just didn’t like it :confused::(

In other words, they should have been minding their own business! ;)

Sriram, the American justice was minding its business. But congress wasn’t, nor were the politicians. Nor are the self righteous people like myself who post a comment on this issue.

[prejudice warning]
Everything that republicans don’t agree with is an ultra-left-liberal agenda. Facts be damned.

BTW, I consider myself as moderately libertarian. I think the courts did the right thing. I would say the same even if the court verdict was diametrically opposite… provided it was in accordance with the laws of the land.

Shobha, I feel the same way as you.

Sriram, congress hould have minded their own business and not butted in, while the courts have had no choice but to get involved since the family wanted it that way.

That said, when a judge decided that Terri would have wanted to die based on the testimony of Michael Schiavo, his brother and his sister-in-law while ignoring contrarian evidence by all blood relatives and best friends, it was not justice served.

OK, let’s take all that out of the equation. Once the courts decided that she should die - that was precisely what removing the feeding tube was, an active seeking of her death, it isn’t like withholding medicine to let her die or something - the least the courts could have done is to let her die a quick death by lethal injection or any such means. What was the morbid point of making the death a drawn-out process and breaking the family’s heart anymore than they had to?

Shanti,
I do agree that letting her to die by starvation was as dumb as it can get. Euthanasia wud have been a better alternative, but I guess they didn’t do it cuz there will be some smart-ass journalists who wud proclaim it as murder! Personally, I wud have given her lethal injection to put her out of her “misery”(if she ever suffered anything)

Shanthi,
If you have a problem with the process take issue with the law that states the “spouse” gets to decide.

An individual case with which you do not agree is sufficient grounds for the argument you put forward.

I meant “is NOT sufficient grounds”

Euthanasia wud have been a better alternative

I refer you to the Hippocratic Oath and why doctors don’t give you an injection to kill you.

Nilu, what is the law on letting an adulterous/polygamous soouse deciding on whether one his spouses lives or dies - I am not so sure of that. I really don’t think justice was served in this case. Processes and laws can be bent through as many loopholes as people can. You create new laws, new loopholes will be invented.

As long as the courts decided Terri was going to be euthanized, they should have atleast had the guts to authorize it instead of letting the death be a drawn-out affair.

MadMan, doctors in Netherlands are already euthanizing newborn babies that are deemed to be terminally ill.

Just for background, I’m all for suicide rights. But this looks like her parents didn’t mind spending money on keeping her alive and from what the doctors could tell, she couldn’t feel any pain either. I think it was wrong to kill her.

I am pro-choice and I think the Schiavo case is being misclassified and misunderstood by most. It is very important for the pro-lifers to understand that misplaced altruism never works without strong scientific backing. I think people were outraged by the reports that even in her condition she showed willingness to live by non-verbal signals. If this story is true it is a case for concern.But for concern to transform into full blown outrage there needs to be some scientific basis that our assumptions are correct and here I talk about two important ones.

1. We are assuming that the schiavo we saw on the tv is the schiavo her husband knew or was the person she was before the incident. It is known that after major brain damage people don’t retain full-copies of their original personalities. What remains is more often a garbled and rudimentary version of the original personality.
Unless this is true which is a very rare possibility, what was being perceived as schiavo was only what was left of her personality. As humans we are not just muscles and organs, we are what our minds are. Who are we to dismiss the desire of TS not to be kept alive on life machines as expressed by her in her full mental capacity before the incident just because we cannot help our misplaced altruism.
I am not sure about the exact nature and magnitude of her brain damage but the reports given to the media surely indicated an extensive damage.

For the second assumption to be applicable we have to assume that the first one is true.

2. That she was indeed understanding the questions and was really answering coherently.
This is anybody’s guess. The relatives who have a conflict of interest say that she was indeed responding non-verbally indicating that she wanted water and didn’t want to die. Now we don’t know how much of the non-verbal gesturing was due to the fact that she was thirsty and how much was due to the coherency of her thought processes. A emotionally moved relative can see things that aren’t there.
I agree that it is a sad yet true fact that whatever was remaining of TS’s personality or worse, whatever personality emerged out of the remaining functioning portion of the brain was not the original inhabitant and had no rights towards the claim of the body whatsoever.

My point is that as Humans our hearts go out to fellow humans in times of pain and suffering and it is a good quality but sometimes misplaced love can lead to more harm than good. And moreover to all the pro-lifers if you love life you must also respect the living being and his/her wishes, and understand that death is an inevitable part of life. It is easy to get swayed by the emotional drama but we should not tread away from facts. It is easy to see humans as evil-doers going against God’s wishes but hey even salmon commit suicide in large numbers..it is natural..when your time comes you need to go..it is your life dammit

Kingsley, that is precisely the way I feel. I am all for a person’s right to choose if they want to live or die. I am just not comfortable placing the issue of someone’s life and death at the mercy of another person who has a huge conflict of interest.

SM, God forbid, if my child were ever in such a position, I know that I will fight tooth and nail to keep him alive as long as it is humanly possible if there is any chance of hope at all. This is precisely why I don’t see any harm in Terri’s parents keeping her alive especially if as everybody says she doesn’t have any feelings at all.

what is the law on letting an adulterous/polygamous soouse deciding on whether one his spouses lives or dies - I am not so sure of that

This point has been bandied about in so many places that I decided to look this up specifically. Out of the countless articles I have read so far, one thing that kept coming up is Terri’s parents actively encouraged Michael Schiavo to consider other relationships. The fallout seems to have happened only after he won the malpractice suit where $750,000 was deposited into Terri’s funds and he pocketed $300,000 for himself. Till date there has been no accusations of misuse of Terri’s money. So this adultery argument seems totally bogus.

This is precisely why I don’t see any harm in Terri’s parents keeping her alive especially if as everybody says she doesn’t have any feelings at all.

Listen the Florida law says the spouse is the sole legal guardian and is the only person who can determine what is good for the other partner should one of them not be in a position to take a life or death decision. Whether you agree with it or not, its a matter of law. For example Hawaii does not have such law — it depends on something called “consensus of well wishers”. Of course it leaves a big gaping hole on who these “well wishers” are supposed to be but one can apparently make an educated guess.

If you have an issue it is the law that needs to be tackled accordingly. Congress’ brain-dead intervention just because THEY DID NOT LIKE THE OUTCOME OF THIS ONE INSTANCE smacks of nothing but dirty politics. What possessed someone like GW Bush who has presided over the most number of executions in the state of Texas and who himself signed “spouse is the sole guardian” law in Texas to say stuff like “erring on the side of life”? What kind of hypocrisy is that?

This kind of character assassination against both members of the family (Terri’s parents and Michael Schiavo) is driven more by frustration on seeing your expected outcome — not by any objective means.

This episode should spark a debate on whether people should consider making a living will. Instead we are simply letting unethical, corrupt Knuckle heads like Tom Delay to turn this into some kind of religious war between the legislature and judiciary.

is driven more by frustration on seeing your expected outcome

butter figers! I meant is driven more by frustration on NOT seeing your expected outcome

See this is the problem. The courts, all the way till the US Supreme Court did not find any reason to remove Michael Schiavo from his guardianship position. In all its infinite wisdom, after hearing testimonies from God knows how many witnesses, the courts decided Terri’s parents simply cannot LAWFULLY do anything about this sordid issue. Who are we, reading half-baked articles in partisan newspapers and getting second-hand information, to objectively argue against it? Remember this happened as far back as 1993 when Michael had 2 kids from his second relationship.

Also, the “acting in best interest” is the crux of the whole episode. THe right-to-die movement thinks that best interest means to bring to an end the suffering that may be caused by being in a PVS. The religions right obviously has other ideas. Who is to decide what a “best interest” action is supposed to be?

I say this again, we are focusing at the wrong issues here.
1. If you don’t want your loved ones suffering day in and day out not knowing what to do with you when you are incapacitated, you better consider preparing a living will clear instructions on what need to happen.
2. States should start considering something along the lines of Oregon’s Death With Dignity act. Although it may not straight forward apply to Terr’s case atleast its a good starting point.

By extension of your analogy Shanthi, you are questioning one of the basis for modern economics - namely property rights.

If decisions can’t be made for others neither should rights be bestowed and therefore there should be no inheritance…..

Am not saying I agree with inheritance - but it’s a reality we live with and please let me know an alternative if you have one.

Dilip, Michael Schiavo did not say dying was in Terri’s best interest. She was not suffering or hurting day in and day out, so that argument is not exactly valid. What Michael said was that she wanted to die rather than live like that - her parents disagree. It was a question of if Terri would have wanted to die or live under the circumstances.

You don’t have to rely on half-baked articles to find out about this situation - if you look at my previous post, there are various links in the comments that have a lot of information and testimonies on the case. I would rather make up my mind with the information. I have seen it argued in other places that most of the other courts only decided on if due process was followed in making Michael Schiavo the guardian and not the actual merits of the case. There is a lot out there that doesn’t exactly add up.

Nilu, people are not property. My husband doesn’t own me because he married me - my parents have as much rights on me as he does.

when did I say people = property??

Nilu, I apologize if I mistook your comments.

Read this editorial in US News by a doctor.
Her last in-depth neurological evaluation was back in 2002. At that time her parents, and the two doctors the court allowed them to choose, believed she had some minimal level of consciousness that enabled her to feel joy and sadness, comfort and pain. In her family’s embrace, they were sure she would live a worthy life, however disabled. Her husband and his two chosen doctors saw the opposite: a human reduced to the level of a vegetable, living but in a persistent vegetative state, awake but unaware, with one of two EEG s being flat. What is troublesome is that the plug—or, to be precise, the feeding tube—was pulled without a fresh evaluation of her mental status. ———
There is legal reasoning behind the decision to deny Schiavo a final neurological exam. In 2002, the court declared with chilling finality that the husband’s doctors, plus one selected by the judge, were right: case closed; no need for ongoing expert neurological evaluations. But these are tricky diagnoses, and many neurologists don’t share the judge’s absolute certainty. Neurologist James Bernat of Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, former chair of the American Academy of Neurology’s ethics committee, told me that aware patients are diagnosed as unaware with “disturbing frequency.” That means there’s a significant risk of wrongly labeling a patient as being in a persistent vegetative state. It is simply not possible to experience with absolute certainty another person’s thoughts, pain, or awareness of the outside world.
That is exactly how I feel. I am disturbed by what I see as a few peoples’ attempt to take a life. I am worried about myself and mine. As I have stated before, if I thought Terri would have wanted to die, all this is a non-issue. I would completely support her right to die.

My point was not her “medical condition”. It relates to your idea of property rights - both positive and negative rights.

I find the covering of this case to be grossly hypocritical. Cases like the Shaivos happen every day accross north america and don’t get the fanfare.
If Terris parents didnt’ have the cash to keep the feeding tube in, she would have died a quiet death a long time ago whether they wanted her to or not.
It happens every bleedin’ week somewhere.
The hypocrysy makes me sick.

Nilu, I guess I am confused as to how property rights apply here.

Radmila, I agree - I was recently listening to the radio and heard of a case where the granddaughter pulled the feeding tube out of a grandmother by faking a power of attorney. It is pretty sad.

The court was right. A few things. People slip into vegetative states very often and parents/spouses usually pull the tube typically after waiting for a few years. Here however her parents did not want to pull the tube for reasons best known to them. Guess what would have happened if Terri had actually died in 89. Michael would have inherited her property and received damages for the faulty medication Terri received. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this. Michael, not Terri’s parents, is the affected and greiving party. For Gods sake, he has lost his wife. But by Terri staying in coma, he is made to suffer even more. He cant marry again. So now he is an adulterer. He spends the damages he received on supporting the feeding tube. He does this for 16 years. He cant marry anyone else, nor can he receive his inheritance. It is the spouse right to make the call on whether the feeding tube can be pulled. The only thing that Terri’s parents can legitimately ask for is to have Terri be legally declared dead, so that Michael may marry again and receive the inheritance and damages which he should have received 16 years ago, but the parents could continue to sponsor the life support.

It is surprising that people have more concerns for a vegetable than the man who has been paying the price for the accident for 16 years.

Anon, Michael coud have very legitimately divorce Terri and get on with his life. He did not have to have her killed. The money in question was not an inheritance - it was money from a malpractice settlement in which Michael sued Terri’s doctors and vowed to take care of her for the rest of her life. Part of the money was explicitly earmarked for Terri’s rehabilitation while Michael already got another $300,000 just for him.

Why should Mike “divorce” Terri when she actually died. What next - pay her alimony? Obviously, all of Terri’s assets should be transferred to Mike. What Mike “vowed” to do is irrelevant. Can you point me to the source that says that Mike siphoned off money that was explicitly earmarked for Terris rehabilitation. This is fresh news !!! 16 years on a tube is rehabilitation enough. What was your point again ?

Anon, keeping someone alive is not the same as getting someone treated. Michael has spent most of Terri’s rehabilitation money on legal costs in his suit to her feeding tube removed. Terri has not received any kind of medical treatment or rehabilitation for the last 11 years.

As for Terri “dying”, see the article I linked to in the comments above - there were as many doctors who said she could be rehabilitated as those who said she couldn’t. I am not saying Michael should pay Terri anything. I am just saying that if he wanted to get rid of her, he could easily have left her.

was that a quick death?????:huh: but there was no other option?

First time here….nice blog.

Tarun, that is why I am hoping the next such case will have a better resolution.

Thanks :)

Aparently, husbands cannot interefer with “reproductive rights” of their wives but they can decide to kill her inspite of appeal from other relatives! Sounds logical to me!

Ashish, there is absolutely no irony in that at all - the right-to-kill always triumphs over the right-to-life…see?