Terri takes a piss

[luckydog71]

The Terri Schiavo story has hit an all time low. They announced recently that Terri had urinated, a sign that her kidneys are still working. The crowd started to cheer.

For Christ sakes have we stripped this woman of all of her dignity for the sake of ratings. Cheering because the woman took a leak.

We need to come to an understanding of how a person is to die. Advances in medical sciences makes it possible for new borns with conditions that would have been fatal just a few years ago to live. It is also possible to hook a person up to support systems that will keep your bodily functions happening for years.

Me, I want to live as long as I have a quality of life. I can not describe this in advance. If I am not able to make that decision for myself, I want my wife to make it for me. I expect she will get all of the information she needs from the doctors, but if the time comes she will know it and will pull the plug.

I don’t want CNN / FOX or any other news outlet broadcasting for the world to cheer that I just took a piss. I don’t want a national debate on my fate. I don’t want the medical profession to argue over my chances for recover to be zero or just nearly impossible.

If the decision is made I then want to go, but not through starvation and dehydration. Treat me with at least the same level of compassion you use to execute a murderer.

I do not know who to believe in all of the news coverage, and I do not need to know. This is a decision for her husband to make. I am sorry for the crap he is being subjected to in the media. Have you noticed he has not jumped in? He is the only one quietly carrying out Terri’s wishes.

 

[hitrack]

It is a human trate to hope against hope in cases like this. But the woman is dead already IMO.

The whole things a joke. You wouldn't even let a rabid dog starve to death. I dunno how the broad is surviving going on 2 weeks with no water, but what ever.

Apparently when she "buys it" the husband is gonna make out like a bandit.

 

[hornydude]

Euthanasia

This is contrary to our inate fear of death...in Western societies influenced by Judeo-Christian beliefs at least, but it is just and compasionate.

I fully endorse what LD says...the key point being that he would not want to go by starvation/ dehydration as poor Terri is (this is a bad way to die...I won't elaborate)

 

[luckydog71]

Hitrack...I heard on a news cast about 2 weeks ago someone offered Terri's husband 1 million dollars if he would walk away and give custody over to her parents.

I only heard this once and it was not reported again. So I do not know if that means it was false or it did not fit the position the network took on this story.

Even if it is not true, you would need to have a very low opinion of her husband to believe he would starve her to death for a few thousand dollars. From my point of view the networks have done a hatchet job on this guy and have not given any compelling reason to support their assertions.

Even my beloved Sean Hannity tonight was talking about spousal abuse as if it were a fact. It was speculation on Sean's part that maybe he abused her and maybe that is why he wants her dead.

It is disgraceful, that these organizations with millions of viewers and all of the power can strike out at Terri's husband and he is not in a position to defend himself. It is like me fighting Mike Tyson and when I fall down from his blows, someone jumps in the ring stands me up so he can continue to punch me.

CNN / FOX - have you no shame...have you no sense of decency....

 

[timec98]

I was happy to hear on Friday that her parents were giving up on any additional legal battles....then the asshat called Jessie Jackson steps into the picture and fires them up to take another run at the courts.

uggh sorry, no - Jackson was asked/invited to participate by the parents --- seems they were concerned that their efforts were being viewed as too heavily influenced by the "religious right" & "compassionate conservative Republicans"

.

 

[timec98]

thanks timec but I NEVER said how he was brought into the fold.....the parents are grasping at straws to prolong the suffering and jackson is just the latest one trick pony

HFS

oh, ok, I misinterpreted your reference to Jackson "firing up the parents" - since they asked/invited him to participate

 

[Makhno]

The blatant crass hypocrisy on this issue at the highest levels of the Bush administration is simply stunning, breathtaking and nauseous.

When Bush ruled Texas, he signed into law a bill that allowed hospitals to pull the plug on patients against family wishes so that hospitals can save money . Now, for some reason, he is pretending to care about Schiavo.

Here is a quote from a site with links to the recent death of an infant in Texas under Bush's health care industry profit-enhancing, life-termination law. On March 15, a Texas court, using Bush's law, allowed treatment to be withdrawn from a pediatric patient over the objections of the child's parent. There were no emergency trips back to DC nor any great public proclamations for this baby (who, by the way, was black).

Life-Support Stopped for 6-Month-Old in Houston
Link
Yesterday Sun Hudson, the nearly 6-month-old at Texas Children's Hospital in Houston, diagnosed and slowly dying with a rare form of dwarfism (thanatophoric dysplasia), was taken off the ventilator that was keeping him alive. A Houston court authorized the hospital's action, and Sun died shortly thereafter. Today's Houston Chronicle and Dallas Morning News have most of the details.

Both papers report that this is the first time in the United States a court has allowed life-sustaining treatment to be withdrawn from a pediatric patient over the objections of the child's parent. (The Dallas paper quotes John Paris, a bioethicist at Boston College, as its source.) If true, the unique Texas statute under which this saga was played out contributed in no small way to the outcome. As one of the laws co-authors (along with a roomful of other drafters, in 1999) let me explain.

Under chapter 166 of the Texas Health and Safety Code, if an attending physician disagrees with a surrogate over a life-and-death treatment decision, there must be an ethics committee consultation (with notice to the surrogate and an opportunity to participate). In a futility case such as Sun Hudson's, in which the treatment team is seeking to stop treatment deemed to be nonbeneficial, if the ethics committee agrees with the team, the hospital will be authorized to discontinue the disputed treatment (after a 10-day delay, during which the hospital must help try to find a facility that will accept a transfer of the patient). These provisions, which were added to Texas law in 1999, originally applied only to adult patients; in 2003; they were made applicable to disputes over treatment decisions for or on behalf of minors. (I hasten to add that one of the co-drafters in both 1999 and 2003 was the National Right to Life Committee. Witnesses who testified in support of the bill in 1999 included representatives of National Right to Life, Texas Right to Life, and the Hemlock Society. Our bill passed both houses, unanimously, both years, and the 1999 law was signed by then Governor George W. Bush.)

In the Hudson case, the hospital ran through the statutory procedure, but decided nonetheless to get a court order authorizing withdrawal of Sun Hudson's ventilator support. The hospital undoubtedly had its own sufficient reasons for taking this additional step; the statute doesn't require a court order. Indeed, the statute was designed to keep these cases out of court, if possible.

I am no great fan of unilateral withdrawals of treatment under the banner of "medical futility." When our drafting team agreed on the key language in chapter 166, I said that I hoped the authority to unilaterally withhold treatment would never have to be invoked, but I knew then what I know even better now: sometimes good, humane medical care requires it.

Since the 2003 change that made the law applicable to minors, I have participated in two cases in which life-support was ultimately withdrawn from infants over parental objections. In both cases, the hospital extended the 10-day waiting period in order to attempt to restart discussions with the parents before unilaterally withdrawing life-support. In one case, a previous hospital's ethics committee (on which I also serve) had twice agreed with the attending physician. The hospital CEO overruled the committee the first time (before the 2003 amendment that added minors to chapter 166), and the second time the child was transferred to our hospital on the 9th day, and we restarted the statutory process from scratch. In neither case did the hospital resort to a judicial proceeding to settle the treatment dispute.

My experience on five hospital ethics committees, and as co-chair of two, is that in both adult and pediatric cases, most futility disputes never get to this last step of unilateral withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment. In most cases either the families drop their opposition along the way or the patient dies before the due-process steps required by the statute have been exhausted. Last fall, ethicists at M.D. Anderson surveyed Texas hospitals' experiences under chapter 166; I hope they will publish their results soon. It will be extremely interesting to find out how often the statutory process has been followed all the way to the end, including withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment over family objections.

There is no telling how the Houston judge would have decided this case if chapter 166 were not on the books. On the one hand, it appears that no judge in this country has ever sided with the family in one of these treatment disputes. On the other hand, the physicians, hospital, and ethics committee appear to agree that Sun's condition was fatal and that his protracted death was not without some suffering. (I don't know how to square this with newspaper reports that "[t]he hospital's description of Sun [was] that he was motionless and sedated for comfort.")

But in this case, the judge wasn't writing on a blank slate. The Legislature had already spoken, twice -- once in 1999 when it enacted chapter 166 and again in 2003 when it amended the law to make it apply to pediatric patients. All the judge had to do -- and apparently all he did do -- was to find that the law authorizes the hospital to withdraw treatment over the objections of Sun's mother, Wanda Hudson.

The papers also report than another case is making its way through Houston courts: "Another case involving a patient on life support — a 68-year-old man in a chronic vegetative state whose family wants to stop St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital from turning off his ventilator — was scheduled to be heard Tuesday by the Houston-based 1st Court of Appeals. But the case was transferred to the 14th Court of Appeals, which promptly issued a temporary injunction ordering St. Luke's not to remove the man's life support. No hearing date has been set." More on this case in a future post.

There are about 30,000 people in a similar state to Schiavo right now in the US - why the extreme focus on this one?

 

[timec98]

Feeding Frenzy

.

 

[luckydog71]

The blatant crass hypocrisy on this issue at the highest levels of the Bush administration is simply stunning, breathtaking and nauseous.

Sorry Makhno, this issue is not a good example for the position you are trying to support.

Bush has actually been quiet on this issue. He signed a bill that was passed in the house that had the support of 55 DEMS. The senate bill was unanimous. In other words, even if he would have vetoed the bill, there was enough support in the congress to override his veto.

What should have been a private family matter has turned into a constitutional crisis not a partisan fight. The fight is between the judiciary and the congress. Our system of government relies on 3 equal branches. If this balance changes our system of government will be damaged.

 

[Mchatte]

I see that the Pope is now being fed by tubes. Is he next. Will a judge make the decision for him. It should be interesting to see what the church's thoughts are about artifcially supporting life!

M

 

[luckydog71]

I see that the Pope is now being fed by tubes. Is he next. Will a judge make the decision for him. It should be interesting to see what the church's thoughts are about artifcially supporting life!

M

Mchatte, it was not the judge that made the decsion for Terri. The decsion was made by Terri's husband and her doctors. The judges decsion was NOT to interfer with a private family matter.

Terri has been in her PVS for 15 years. The Pope has another 14 years and 51 weeks to go.

 

[Venture70]

Bush not making a big deal??????

Luckydog,

When you say this:
Bush has actually been quiet on this issue. He signed a bill that was passed in the house that had the support of 55 DEMS. The senate bill was unanimous. In other words, even if he would have vetoed the bill, there was enough support in the congress to override his veto.

...are you aware that Bush came home early from vacation for the first time ever to sign this bill? Are you aware that a Presidential veto is final - no amount of support in Congress can override a veto. Make no mistake - Bush's handlers have decided that this is an opportunity to reach out to the 'pro-life' community, and he is making the most of this opportunity. He may not be making long impassioned speeches, but his 'position' on this matter is very very clear.

 

[eljudo]

its ironic on how the president went to war , killed thousands of innocent " non vegetative civilian " yet, he tries to portray himself as being pro life? for a single dentity that as far as the medical community is concerned , is brain dead.

 

[luckydog71]

...are you aware that Bush came home early from vacation for the first time ever to sign this bill? Are you aware that a Presidential veto is final - no amount of support in Congress can override a veto.

Venture70 – I am aware that Bush came to the White House specifically to sign the bill. He does support this bill, I do not.

A Presidential veto can be overridden if 2/3 of the house and 2/3 of the senate vote to over ride the veto.

In this case there was not going to be a veto. I was trying to point out that 2 branches of government have broad bipartisan support.

Make no mistake - Bush's handlers have decided that this is an opportunity to reach out to the 'pro-life' community, and he is making the most of this opportunity. He may not be making long impassioned speeches, but his 'position' on this matter is very very clear.

I agree Bush is Pro-life he said so when he ran in 00 and again in 04. What I find most upsetting is the large number of politicians who have decided to take up this issue as an opportunity to promote their own agenda.

I have been disappointed by how a number of people and organizations have acted.


Fox News – my news channel – the network that is fair and balanced – was not.
The conservatives in congress who pushed this bill
Jesse Jackson – although he does not surprise me with his timing
The Church
The priest who was the spokesman for Terri’s parents.

To me Bush was in favor of what congress did but he did not enter into the hype.

There are some bright lights

Terri’s husband- through it all he remained quiet, even when he was being attacked by the church, the government, his in-laws, the new networks. He showed tremendous restraint.

The courts – I can not believe I am saying this. The courts with all of those liberal judges followed the constitution, when the other 2 branches choose to act outside of the powers given them. This is an issue of individual rights and the states right to apply some regulations to health issues. The federal government has no authority here.

I wonder, in the history of the US if there has ever been a bill that had such a narrow focus that it named a specific individual as the only person the bill would effect.

 

[Mchatte]

Mchatte, it was not the judge that made the decsion for Terri. The decsion was made by Terri's husband and her doctors. The judges decsion was NOT to interfer with a private family matter.

Terri has been in her PVS for 15 years. The Pope has another 14 years and 51 weeks to go.

You're right, I stand corrected. The Pope has now been given his last rights so he must be failing fast..........

M

 

[dirtydan]

The Terri Schiavo story has hit an all time low. They announced recently that Terri had urinated, a sign that her kidneys are still working. The crowd started to cheer.

For Christ sakes have we stripped this woman of all of her dignity for the sake of ratings. Cheering because the woman took a leak.

We need to come to an understanding of how a person is to die. Advances in medical sciences makes it possible for new borns with conditions that would have been fatal just a few years ago to live. It is also possible to hook a person up to support systems that will keep your bodily functions happening for years.

This is happening by far because of right-wing extremist religious zealots. The type of vile disgusting idiot that cheers on the Bush campaign to conquer Iraq regardless of the thousands and thousands of civilian deaths but suddenly embraces th greatness of life when there is an individual they can selfishly exploit.

15 years with very little brain function, that was the essence Terri Schiavo. Her husband fought for 7 years to bring his wife some peace, but thanks to his fanatical religious in-laws they prolonged her suffering. Too bad for that lot that they are so goddamn stupid to have recognized their mistake. If I were a religious person I would find comfort that Terri's mother, father, and brother (anymore sisters and brothers?) will be burning in hell for all eternity once their selfish lives have expired.

My understanding from non-US media reports is Schiavo's brain functions were at the point she had no idea of what was going on. The purpose of the feeding tube is to see how the body does or does not react to nurishment. If there is no change then there is no use to maintain the feeding tube. The bottom line is Terri Schiavo should have been permitted to die by ethuensia a long time ago.

Another lesson to be learned from this is the need for a person to have a living will. I have one. All I did was buy a will kit at Staples for like $10 about 4 years ago.

 

[luckydog71]

This is happening by far because of right-wing extremist religious zealots. The type of vile disgusting idiot that cheers on the Bush campaign to conquer Iraq regardless of the thousands and thousands of civilian deaths but suddenly embraces th greatness of life when there is an individual they can selfishly exploit.

DD – your rhetoric is no different than the other extreme that has vilified Terri’s husband. Your rant is not about Terri it is about your hatred of Bush. I am surprised you have not blamed the tsunami and El Niño on Bush. On this issue Bush actually took a very low key approach. We know his position but he did not go off the deep end as many of the extreme right and the extreme left did.

I am a supporter of Michael’s decision. But I dislike your characterization of Terri’s parents. I have no reason to believe they had evil motives or that they should be condemned to hell for their actions. I think they were wrong. I think they were misguided, but I think they were sincere in their belief that what they were doing were in Terri’s best interests.

We need a national discussion, not on Terri, but on an individual’s right to die. Do we need unanimous decision from every and any medical professional who wants to provide an opinion? Even those based on video tapes. How many court cases are required before a person has the right to die? What right do the media have to enter into the personal lives of those families that are grieving and need to make heart wrenching decisions?

You over heated rhetoric does nothing to dignify Terri’s life and does nothing to further a national debate that is needed.

A zealot is someone who believes there is only one opinion that matters, his. Everyone else must be wrong and have evil motives.

DD you need to review your comments and determine if the definition of a zealot fits.

 

[dirtydan]

Sorry Makhno, this issue is not a good example for the position you are trying to support.

Bush has actually been quiet on this issue. He signed a bill that was passed in the house that had the support of 55 DEMS. The senate bill was unanimous. In other words, even if he would have vetoed the bill, there was enough support in the congress to override his veto.

What should have been a private family matter has turned into a constitutional crisis not a partisan fight. The fight is between the judiciary and the congress. Our system of government relies on 3 equal branches. If this balance changes our system of government will be damaged.

Not a partisan fight? It was nothing more than a vile attempt of the religious zealots of the Republicans to exploit a private matter for purely their own self serving interests. When the early polls came in that US public strongly felt it should have remained a private matter the Republicans dropped the Shiavo case like it was a hot potato.

Congress coming back on an emergency recall. The President coming back early from another vacation. Very partisan.

 

[luckydog71]

The senate vote was unanimous, so it needed to include Clinton and Kennedy.

The house vote got 55 DEMS.

Jessie Jackson and George Bush on the same side of an issue, how much more bi-partisan can you get. Too bad it is on an issue were the majority of congress and the White House is wrong

 

[dirtydan]

DD – your rhetoric is no different than the other extreme that has vilified Terri’s husband.

I call's them as I sees them. They were very much apart of that dumbass zoo atomosphere, in particular her brother. I can't any sympathy for her parents and sibling(s), I just can't.

Your rant is not about Terri it is about your hatred of Bush. I am surprised you have not blamed the tsunami and El Niño on Bush. On this issue Bush actually took a very low key approach. We know his position but he did not go off the deep end as many of the extreme right and the extreme left did.

You're being silly LD. Take a good hard look at how the religious zealots of the far right created that zoo atomosphere. Bush along with the Republicans in Congress were way out front and center when the zoo started. But as I said above when the polls weren't with them, they backed way, way off. That's why Bush and his fellow Republicans got to be low key.

BTW, is there an extreme left in the US? 'Cause it sure as hell ain't the Democrats.

I am a supporter of Michael’s decision. But I dislike your characterization of Terri’s parents. I have no reason to believe they had evil motives or that they should be condemned to hell for their actions. I think they were wrong. I think they were misguided, but I think they were sincere in their belief that what they were doing were in Terri’s best interests.

I have a great deal of sympathy for her husband, but I can't find a damn thing for her parents and brother. If they weren't active participants in that ugly zoo then they were duped and terribly so.

We need a national discussion, not on Terri, but on an individual’s right to die. Do we need unanimous decision from every and any medical professional who wants to provide an opinion? Even those based on video tapes. How many court cases are required before a person has the right to die? What right do the media have to enter into the personal lives of those families that are grieving and need to make heart wrenching decisions?

If any good can come of this it will be progress FINALLY being made in the issue of euthanasia (sp?) And for anyone that paid even just the slightest of attention hopefully they see the necessity of a living will.

You over heated rhetoric does nothing to dignify Terri’s life and does nothing to further a national debate that is needed.

We're different. For one I have been never able to wrap my head around the odd notion of referring to a complete and total stranger by his/her first name. To me she's Terri Shiavo or Shiavo. Secondly, I'm interested in the truth of this matter and that truth is the willingness of the Right in the US is stoop to lows that defy common decency.

A zealot is someone who believes there is only one opinion that matters, his. Everyone else must be wrong and have evil motives. DD you need to review your comments and determine if the definition of a zealot fits.

The zealots in this are those religious freaks. I am merely pointing that out.