Supreme court denies Schiavo appeal

[Jonathan]

Well okay after some stupid cases coming out winning I was
put down but this.. this is court-sactioned execution- murder!

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/24/schiavo/index.html

[Frank Hagan]

There's a lot of emotion on both sides of this one. Groups have staked out positions based on their goals, using this case as a cause celeb, but I'm not sure they are doing any of us a favor.

For 25 years my wife was a geriatric social worker, who dealt with the issues of medical intervention, and death and dying. She saw plenty of families torn apart by someone having to make unpopular decisions as the appointed decision maker.

In this case, I've heard the judges called murderers, the husband called vindictive and a money monger, the Congress called shallow and self-serving, the parents called naive "right to lifers" without a clue, the victim called alert and orientated and a vegetable, etc.

In the end, the law of the state of Florida should prevail. That means the husband is the decision maker unless there is compelling evidence that he should be removed. That has been litigated, and the slanders aside, no evidence exists that would cause his removal as the decision maker. The spouse is always the first choice as decision maker, since it is the spouse someone would confide the most intimate beliefs to, even if those beliefs go against religious upbringing.

Personally, I would not remove a feeding tube, but I would refuse to have one inserted. It is medical intervention, and it can be refused. I would remove a ventilator without hesitation given the circumstances usually found in these cases ... several times a day it is done all across this country. Its an ethical dilemma, for sure, one that is brought on by our ability to make a machine take the place of nature.

[Jonathan]

But removing the tube.. its just not right. Its not a humane and dignified
death, letting her rest in peace as the husband is trying to say.

How many people raise up in protest if they shoot a horse that is
on the edge of death? What about tigers? Elephants? etc.
What about shooting a human on the edge of death? Same thing.

Now slowly kill said human by removing the feeding tube and having
her/him slowing starve to death, all those protesters go silent.
Pretty funny.

I can see pulling the plug, but to do so in this manner..
its murder, its not a humane dignified death of a loved one
who has passed into such a state that they would never be
more than someone totally unaware of their situation and so forth.

[Buddha]

I knew something had died in the neighborhood a few days earlier, just didn't know who. I know better than to go looking though.

My neighbor, Charlie, across the street from me was found dead today. Doesn't take long in Florida for a dead body to become a bloated stinking mess. It's a smell you never forget. Charlie lived alone. He died alone. One of his other friends found his bloated corpse. His dead body rotted for ... I'm guessing a week from the stench. Is this a dignified way to die? Alone without family or friends to hold your hand as you pass. I've found there's little dignity in death.

There is dignity in life though. Charlie was a good person who helped his friends. He would share his beer with you. He kept his yard sort of mowed. He'd give you a ride if you needed one. He looked out for the elderly. He'd always give you a wave and a hello. He would share the little that he had with anyone.

If you died tonight who will remember the dignity of your life?

Rest in Peace, Charlie.

[Jonathan]

Rest in Peace, Charlie I'm sorry to hear this Budda.
Your right in that there is no dignity in death. Never will be.
But removing a feeding tube and letting her starve to death instead
of administrating something to make it abit more quick and less painful
seems like they are making it so much worse than it has to be.

[Frank Hagan]

Rest in Peace, Charlie I'm sorry to hear this Budda.
Your right in that there is no dignity in death. Never will be.
But removing a feeding tube and letting her starve to death instead
of administrating something to make it abit more quick and less painful
seems like they are making it so much worse than it has to be.

Well, starvation isn't that painful. I'm not sure there's a good way to die, but starvation comes pretty close to "good". The crowd outside would protest more if you gave her enough morphine to kill her quickly, as that is "active euthanasia" rather than withholding intervention and letting "nature take its course". We only allow "active euthanasia" in Oregon, if I remember correctly.

I worry that in this case, no one can give the victim ice chips to ease her way along. I worry that in this individual case the decision maker is wrong, and looking perhaps for his interests and not those of the victim. I worry that the FL court didn't listen to, and invalidated the FL legislature's desire that "custody" be transferred to the parents, and overstepped its bounds in doing so. I'd like to see us return to the idea that the legislatures are really the most express will of the people, as the founders suggested.

But I'm not ready to go back to the days when families couldn't allow their loved ones to pass on, when feeding tubes and ventilators kept bodies alive for dozens of years, as the families were on hold. Where even the stated wishes of the patient, duly recorded before any illness or accident caused a problem, were not honored, and instead the medical community took all (billable) measures to prolong life ... and some would say, prolong death.

We are bound to make bad decisions sometimes in these cases. God have mercy on our souls.

[felipe808]

Balance

I think you've got it pretty close to "right" , Frank...if that is possible. It's a terrible thing, but it shouldn't be decided by the gov. Pretty weird the Repubs feel no conflict trying to use the Gov they complain about so much regarding interference in citizen and state rights...and, here is a poor guy, the husband, who has got to know the girl better than even her parents having to fight for 7 years for a little dignity for the woman he married.

Interesting world we live in. In all events: we are very lucky to be where we are.

[Frank Hagan]

I'm not sure I am upset about the state legislature or the executive branch getting involved; they limited it to this one case, for a review of the issues, to make sure that the issue was being decided appropriately. I'm not even upset about the national Congress getting involved, as they limited it to this one case, and asked for a review by the federal courts (even though the Fed courts had twice already decided not to hear the case).

Our "mission statement" as a nation states the lofty goal that we recognize certain rights to be gifts from God, and that the reason governments are formed is to secure those rights. When any branch of our government works with the other two branches in order to try and secure a right for someone, its not a bad thing.

I am upset that the "right to die" people and the "right to life" people are using this case as an example, with calls from nut-burgers on both sides for illegal actions. This is, after all the reviews, a wrenching decision made by the husband, who is the decision maker.

The latest I heard this morning is that the Schindlers had encouraged Michael to date and "get on with his life" until the medical malpractice lawsuit was settled ... $750,000 was put in a trust for Terri's care (not used by Michael, as some have claimed) and $300,000 was awarded to Michael for loss of consortium. The Schindlers wanted Michael to give them half of his $300,000. When he refused, they filed the first lawsuit trying to remove him as her guardian.

There are about 70,000 pages of documents to weed through on this case, so we'll continue to hear stories like the above, without knowing for certain if they are slanders or not.

[J-G]

Did anyone see this?

Did anyone see this? Live updates from the scene in Florida.

http://timbayly.worldmagblog.com/timbayly/archives/013591.html

[thewave]

I worry that in this case, no one can give the victim ice chips to ease her way along.

Hospice will usually apply artificial saliva gel or a vegetable oil to deal with dry mouth. Ice chips or moistening with water may cause choking in a patient who can't swallow.

[Frank Hagan]

The report I heard this morning is that Terri cannot swallow; there was an extensive evaluation entered into evidence in the first court case that water given orally may cause her to aspirate the fluid, choking her. She is in hospice care, so the other alternatives to try and comfort her are available.

Does any one here remember the controversy over hospice care in the 1970s? I remember the same kind of rhetoric, on both sides, but that has died down quite a bit. I think hospice care is generally recognized now as a comfort to the person dying.

[Jonathan]

What was hospice care in the 70s, if not what we (or @least I) thought
it was now days, being comfort to a dying person?

[thewave]

What was hospice care in the 70s, if not what we (or @least I) thought
it was now days, being comfort to a dying person?

They were basically viewed as ghouls with a euthanasia agenda.

The report I heard this morning is that Terri cannot swallow; there was an extensive evaluation entered into evidence in the first court case that water given orally may cause her to aspirate the fluid, choking her

A great deal of people on feeding tubes are "nothing by mouth" (NPO) patients. They may lack the ability to swallow or completely swallow and will aspirate fluids. The usual remedy for dry mouth and thirst are glycerin swaps, saliva gels, etc.

For the most part hospice is a godsend for families. They take a great deal of the care burden from families especially when the end stages begin. At the end, workers are usually there around the clock making sure the patient and family is as comfortable as medically possible.

[Frank Hagan]

Hospice was considered to have a hidden agenda to get us to mistrust medical science and glorify death. It was nothing of the sort, of course, and now I don't think many people are against it.

[Buddha]

Hospice usually need volunteers. Maybe one in your area could use a hand? They'll usually allow volunteers to chose a position either direct patient contact or a supporting position. 4 hours a week usually. No better way to understand this issue than get involved.

VolunteerMatch

Been pretty much in total agreement with Frank on this topic.