Sciavo autopsy

by rebel8 49 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  jeanniebeanz

  This whole thing was just so sad...

  J
• 

  Simon

  Oh well, cant take the quote box off, but anyway here is a link to the latest. Gov Bush ordered an inquiry as to why Terry's husband took so long to call 911 after he discovered she had collapsed.

  I'm not surprised that the Bush's are against killing people with no functioning brain ... that would surely be a threat to them
• 

  EvilForce

  If anybody wants to argue the Bush's don't play "payback"....here's yet another example that they do.
• 

  Abaddon

  144etc.

  In the Sciavo case, her estranged husband fought hard and ultimately successfully to starve and dehydrate his estranged wife to death.

  Yes, of course one can phrase it nice and emotively (long sarcastic handclaps), but you're ignoring the fact his wife had ceased to exist in any meaningful fashion.

  In such an instance one has few choices. One can keep the vegatative patient's body going. If someone is legally next-of-kin and is doing this out of their own finances, fine. If someone wishes to drain public resources, it is very unfine as it means people who CAN be helped will not be helped because of resources being spent on keeping vegatative patients (who CANNOT be helped) alive. Perpetual maintenance of vegatative patients is less wonderful and cosy if you factor in people potentially dying as a result.

  On can turn the machine off (if one is being used for respiration) and/or stop feeding. Obviously palliative care is going to be used whilst the body dies, but why bother mentioning that if you're trying to make some out to be an inhuman (oh, sorry, you say 'subhuman')?

  Of course, one could terminate the remaining life functions very easily; I suppose rather than withdrawl of support/sustenance you favour a bullet through the brain stem/chemical termination?

  I think his desires regarding Terri should have been subordinated to those of her parents, because during the time he was asserting his right to so starve and dehydrate his wife, he was a blatant adulterer and was raising bastard children attributable to said adultery.

  Do you seriously think spittle-lipped emotional phrasing makes your position in any way more convincing? As I say, when you can put your life on hold for years to play court to vegatative patient, you can make this statement convincingly. Until then it is posturing.

  You seem to place greater emphasis on the shell of the human than that which makes it human. When I marry again, I am marrying the being, not the shell the being comes in. If the being dies so do my ties, even if there's a thing of flesh kept respiring by machines or alive albeit vegatative. Until death do us part? Yes, until the death of that which I loved, i.e. the being, not the body. You're free to feel otherwise but your moral condemnation is just not supported by the facts.

  He could have divorced her and allowed her parents, who were willing to take over her care, to do so.

  So if a loved one is beyond help and effectvely no more, rather than ensuring their wishes are catered for I should give up my responsibilities? Divorce the effectively dead body of the woman I loved and thus betray her? Oooo! What a moral highground you suggest! A shining beacon of logic is what you are. LOL.

  This subhuman didn't even allow her parents to be with her when she passed.

  She had passed, they were letting her body die... but I doubt you've read WHY he had to ask her family not be present whilst her wishes were carried out... or don;t want to mention it as it explains why...

  I realize that my view is a moral one rather than a legal one,

  ... along with being totally illogical, judgemental, offensive, unbalanced, etc.?

  but it seems rather unfair that this creep was allowed to make the decision instead of those who really loved Terri.

  More moralisng, how do you know what's in his head? Your whole postion is floating on a raft of unsupportable assumptions. Why the sudden love of presuppostitonalism? Obviously the facts in this instance mean little to you.

  I found it rather unfair that his wishes were given precedence over that of her parents. If he was my brother in law, he would have found himself on life support as well.

  Wonderful, so you would put someone on life support for trying to carry out your sister's wishes, purely to satisfy your own desire to sit by her vegatative body in some perpetual useless mawkish wake, even though this went against her express wishes.

  Family like that I don't need... who the hell does?

  I think we should file this under 'agree to differ'...
• 

  rebel8

  Oh well, cant take the quote box off, but anyway here is a link to the latest. Gov Bush ordered an inquiry as to why Terry's husband took so long to call 911 after he discovered she had collapsed.

  And what was the outcome of that inquiry? The husband states he called 911 immediately. Terri's family is the one claiming he didn't call right away and AFAIK they weren't present when she collapsed. Suspicious allegation to make with no apparent basis.
  

  inasmuch as Mr. Schiavo had already moved on with his life (i.e., adulteress relationship with offspring), I found it rather unfair that his wishes were given precedence over that of her parents.

  You can feel it's unfair, but it would have been illegal to do what you're suggesting. In this country our justice system is supposed to value following the law. The purpose of having laws in the first place is to safeguard us against unjustice in case situations arise in the future. Overriding laws every time we think "it's not fair" is a strange way to operate--why not just evaluate potential circumstances and pass fair laws ahead of time?
• 

  144001

  Abaddon, Rebel 8, . . .
  
  At the end of the day, the courts spoke, and Mr. Schiavo's wishes were carried out. I have no issue with the legal outcome of the case. And while I disagree with the decision of the court, I respect it. However, I have no respect for Michael Schiavo. His callous need to starve and dehydrate his estranged wife, in flagrant disregard and disrespect of her parent's wishes, to me was morally unconscionable.
• 

  EvilForce

  144001...would it have been more acceptable to you if they gave her a massive does of opioids to end her life? Or did you just feel that Michael S. was a dirt bag and not really interested in Terri's well being?
• 

  144001

  Evil,
  
  Yes to both.
  
  I think it's rather disgraceful that Ms. Schiavo, at least in theory, suffered a more painful death than that experienced by condemned criminals. The issue of euthanasia is a subject deserving of a separate thread, but I'll go on record as being in favor of it, subject to strict controls.
  
  On the latter, I don't know everything about the case, but Michael's insistence on the ultimate outcome, when considered in light of his personal situation at the time Terri died, seemed rather suspect to me. He had already moved on with another woman, had kids with her, and Terri was just a bad memory of the past for him, so I'm suspicious that his fight to unplug Terri was at least in part attributable to his need to get rid of old baggage from the past and move on with his life. If he had allowed her parents to take custody of her, he would still be dealing with any guilt attributable to his decision to move on with his life. I was particularly disgusted by his need to deny Terri's parents and family the opportunity to be with her as she passed. I think that spoke volumes about what type of person Michael Schiavo is.
• 

  TresHappy

  This whole thing is horribly sad, on both sides. I just wish they would let her rest in peace.
• 

  EvilForce

  144001...ok fair enough.
  
  I just have heard lots of folks use the "cruel punishment" debate but have debated me previously on the acceptance of ending one's own life if terminal anyway. Seems hypocritical. They pick a sifting stance depending on the circumstances.
  
  You look at his "pig headedness" as evil. I see it more for truly believing in Terri's cause. After being so painfully persecuted in the media and courtroom I think it would have been far easier to drop it and let Terri become her parent's ward instead of fighting them for years and years in court. My exposure to lawsuits makes my skin crawl. I hate them. They are painful. People offered him money to walk away and leave her be. He turned it down and kept fighting for what he said Terri would want. You also seem to begrudge him for "moving on". If I was in Terri's state I would fully EXPECT my husband to move on with his life and try to find some love and fulfillment. I would not want him nor anyone waiting for 15 years on me. Two years....maybe. Fifteen...NO! I'm not sure any of us could have our personal lives examined like Michael's and not have room to be demonized by the media and opposing counsel. Also, from what I read Michael tried to offer an olive branch to the parents for them to be there while Terri passed but their lawyer started making all sorts of demands and shite-canned the entire agreement. As with any debates....two sides (or more).
  
  Needless to say....it's easy to argue what he/she/they did or didn't do right. It's tragic. But I have seen my share of issues like this. Jeb Bush getting involved yet again makes me ill. Terri has passed. Let's learn what we can....fill out our medical directives. And hopefully all the family and friends around Michael, Terri, and her parents will find some sort of solace and can move on with their shattered lives.