The tube feeding Schiavo was removed today.Were the courts correct in their decision?

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050319/ap_on_re_us/brain_damaged_woman

This is so difficult. For most of us, it is easy to say ' I would do this or that'. But if you are in the middle of an almost identical situation - it is a decision that once made, you question in the back of your mind from that day forward. My family had to deal with this personally.

On one hand, it seems inconceivable to allow this to happen to your loved one. But if there is no hope, nothing but involuntary brain stem function left - that loved one has already departed - yet trapped in a spiritual netherland. This particular man had always been so alive and vital -a bigger than life kind of guy. He would have been humiliated to continue 'life' in that vegetative state. I could not allow that to happen. I had to let him go and be healed, in the next place. And yet this goes against what I am taught by my conventional faith. I guess that's why I no longer have a conventional faith -but have replaced it with a stronger, more real version of it's pale former self.

My point? Try not to be too hard on people who face this unspeakable problem. Whatever they decide must be faced down and lived with every day for the rest of their lives. Our ancestors never had to face these decisions. Now because of modern medicine, knowing what is right is just not that simple any more.

I don't know because I didn't know this woman before the accident. I wasn't there to hear her say "I would never want to live like this". I didn't review the medical literature and I haven't reviewed her medical files.

I know that I would most likely not want to live my life like that, having other peple bathe me, brush my teeth, pity me, forget me... But then there's also that 0.1% chance that a miracle could occur - would I want to waste that chance? I have no clue - I don't want to think about it.

So were the courts right? My opinion? Yes - they were right to stay out of it. Her husband made the decision, as he had the right to do. I'm sorry it caused such problems with the rest of the family, they should be togetehr at times like this, not pulled apart.

I have to agree with Beth and ktstew. It's easy to view the husband or the parents harshly depending upon which side of the debate your own convictions lie. But, most of us will thankfully never experience a situation like this one.

I think the courts were in the right and I don't think Congress should have tried to step in at all. But, I think more than anything that this case illustrates something very important. Put your wishes in writing. Let your loved ones know exactly what you want. If her wishes had been in writing, this case wouldn't have been drug out like this and.

I also had a similar event occur in my family and felt at the the time I was very glad that it wasn`t my call to make. My cousin had to turn off the machine that was keeping her daughter alive. I still cannot find any words to say to her except "sorry you had to make that decision".
It will be interesting to see those without children change their opinion regarding who has the right to make the choice when they have children, the parental bond has nothing to match it. Something I didn`t believe or understand until Natasha was born.
One thing I do agree with is the comment by Indiequeen that you should put your wishes in writing. I have and have stated that if there is a chance, no matter how small, that I may recover enough to communicate I should be kept alive.
This particular tragic case comes down to motive.
The parents have only one that we can be sure of, they wish to keep their daughter alive purely because of love, that cannot be questioned.
The husbands possible motives could include closure of a sad part of his life and give him the ability to move on afresh. The strain on his current relationship would have been great and the fact that he has transfered some of his love to his new partner would without doubt have some effect upon his decision.
In no way am I condemning the husband but in such a case all possible influences must be covered and questioned.

In reviewing the above posts, I feel I need to clarify something I failed to make clear: Bill had already, a year prior to this incident, made a living will. This was unknown to us until I started to try and put our legal affairs in order. Even though it was clear what his wishes were after reading this legal document, our family was required to meet with both the hospital ethics commitee and the neurosurgeon. { Plus our lawyer}. But rhetorically speaking, it was still I who gave final consent by signing the nessessary papers.

My fiancee was IN a situation like this in Ireland. She was hit head on by a drunk American in Ireland in February 2002. Her father wanted the life support removed, but a friend of mine in Tennessee went over and was her executor. He continued to press the doctors to get a reading. They went three times without brain activity. The fourth time came up with brain activity. This was about 1am my local time. Fortunately, she is still with me, three years later, and I thank God every day I get to hear her voice. I feel bad for the family, although I did not know this woman, it is a hard time.

I think the courts were absolutely right. I don't want my judicial system making decisions like that for any citizen. I don't think they should HAVE to, and I don't think the should. If the family cannot come to some terms, the decision of the "next of kin", in this case the husband, should be the final word unless the rest of the family can get the courts to declare that person unfit, and that is the only time the courts should be involved.

And it scares the heck out of me that my CONGRESS felt the need to intervene.

For myself, I don't like life support. If I'm in a horrible accident and have a chance of recovering, sure, keep me alive. If I'm given less than a 10% or even 20% chance of recovering, or if I'm alive without being alive, don't bother. What a horrible thing to do to one's family. They need to be allowed to let me go if the time comes, and they don't need the expense my lack-of-life is adding to their backs in addition to their grief. If I have a reasonable chance of survival, of course, I'm all for taking it. But I do not choose to inflict that lingering, painful goodbye on my family. (I really don't mean that to sound judgemental of other peoples' personal choices, and I realize it might, but that IS exactly how I feel about it, so I'm not going to rephrase it.)

I don't have a living will yet, but my family, including my parents, my sister and my husband, have sat together and discussed the subject at length and we ALL know what each of us wants. We've even discussed how difficult it will be to follow through with those wishes when / if the time comes. I think my husband didn't exactly like hearing what I had to say, and I know that if given the chance he would take all that painful waiting, hoping, wishing, grieving and non-emotional expense and draw it out for as long as he could, he'd fight tooth and nail to keep me, but that isn't kind to him, and he knows it. I simply cannot allow him to take that burden on himself, so I've given him permission to say goodbye to me before he does.

Having never been in a situation like this, thankfully, but feeling the way I do, I will not question the motives of her husband. I haven't yet heard anyone question whether he ever loved her, only whether he still loved her as much as he once did. If we can accept that he loved her, this situation has been just as hard on him as it has on all the rest of the family, and one certainly can't fault him for his finding a new relationship, and so I fail to see how it has any bearing on the situation. Obviously having a new relationship might change how he feels about his obligations to the body that was once his wife. But the fact that she was only the body of his wife also probably had something to do with it. I just don't think looking at the motives of either is worth it. Frankly, I don't think love is the only motive the parents had to keep her alive, either, I think fear and despair and selfishness had a great deal to do with it as well, and if they think keeping their daughter alive in that state just so they don't have to deal with their grief yet is really better than whatever his reasons were for ending it, they are mistaken.

This certainly is a tough case. While I understand the position taken by those of you that have posted, I must offer a dissenting opinion (surprise ). Let me preface my comments by sharing my personal experience with a somewhat similar situation. My grandfather, a lifetime smoker, had throat and mouth cancer. He had to be feed intravenously but after a while he ordered the doctors to remove the feeding IV and he passed away three days later. My grandfather's was of sound mind and made his own decision. His cancer was also terminal and he was at the end anyway, so he did not suffer long from lack of nutrition - he probably would have passed at about the same time anyway. So I understand the desire not to be kept alive past a certain point, but here is where I have problems with the Schiavo case.

It is reasonable to assume that Terry Schiavo and her husband discussed this matter as he claims. However, a lot of young couples never take the time to really discuss such situations in depth and, as in this case, don't take the time to make living wills. So this issue for me is that we don't know what her wishes are. And since there is no definitive answer, I believe that we should err on the side of life since death is irreversible.

Second, many have painted a picture of TS being kept alive by artificial means. I strongly reject that argument. TS can breath on her own, she doesn't require a ventilator. She doesn't require any artificial means to keep her heart beating, she has brain waves no matter her cognitive abilities. She simply requires a tube to be fed. You and I require a spoon and fork to be fed. Are we being artificially kept alive?

Thirdly, I am in no position to judge Mr. Schiavo and have no wish to do so. I gladly give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he is trying to do the right thing by his wife. That he now has a new family and children is of no consequence. I don't think any reasonable person can fault him for that. But one has to wonder why he never divorced TS. Some have suggested that he stood and still stands to inherent over $1 million upon her death, though I have heard that the lawyers have sucked up much of that. That is enough to at least consider that he might have extra motivation to see the tube removed.

Fourth, if the family was in agreement in this matter I don't think we would be having this discussion. I don't think Congress or anyone else would have tried to intervene. But she has parents who strongly believe that she can improve, have doctors that back their claim, and want to care for her. They are fighting a valiant struggle for their daughter's life. What is the rush to kill this woman? In the absence of clear instructions from TS as to her wishes, why not let her parents and brother assume gaurdianship over her. Let them care for her and try to give her the best medical care available and see if she improves. Maybe TS is cognizant enough to be thinking, "Please take care of me. Don't let them remove my feeding tube." I mean, how do we really know? Seems farfetched perhaps but we just don't know.

Lastly, it seems incredibly cruel to let this woman die by starvation. Here is the starvation process:

Quote:

---

Days Three to Four: Urine output decreases and patients begin to lose normal body secretions. The mouth begins to look dry and the eyes appear sunken. Patients will look thinner because the body tissues have lost fluid. Their heart rate gradually goes up and their blood pressure goes down. In some patients, dehydration releases endorphins in the brain that create a state of euphoria.

_ Days Five to 10: People who are alert have a marked decrease in their alertness. Respiration becomes irregular with periods of very fast and then very slow breathing. Some patients will become restless, while others will be less active. For patients in a persistent vegetative state, there may be no discernible change in their movements.

_ Days 10 to Death: Patients do not appear to respond to their environment at all and may appear to be in a coma. Length of death process is determined by how well-nourished patient was and how much body fat and fluid they had when procedure began. May be outward signs of dehydration, such as extremely dry skin. Kidney function declines and toxins begin accumulating in the body. Toxins cause respiratory muscles to fail. Multiple organ systems begin to fail from lack of nutrition.

Source: LifePath Hospice.

---

We would not inflict such punishment upon the most heinous dregs of society. Image the outrage if we treated deathrow inmates in such a manner. Image the international outrage if we subjected Al Queda prisoners to starvation. This is a basic violation of human rights. Yet it is good enough for the likes of TS because she simply isn't "normal". If her husband, doctors, and the courts insist on killing this woman the least they can do is give her a lethal injection and make it quick. We give that basic courtesy to worst criminals of society and many even consider that barbaric. So I'm just wondering why TS deserves much worse.

Final thought: Please make a living will - TODAY

You know, I was getting ready to write a post about this subject, but Diehard has expressed my views exactly. The problem for me is that Mr. Schiavo can make decisions for his wife based on what she verbally told him. If someone dies without a will, and a relative tells the court "she told me she wanted me to have $10,000 of her money when she dies" it would not even be considered. Why is this any different? I would have no desire to continue living in the state that Terry Schiavo is in, but I do not want someone else making that decision for me if I have not expressed it in a living will with specific terms.
I, like Diehard, don't understand why Mr. Schiavo doesn't just divorce his wife and leave her care to her parents, who are perfectly willing to take all responsibility. He doesn't have to do a thing but walk away.

You are very right, cinnimOn. It is a real mystery why this man won't divorce his wife, when he has for some time been emotionally involved with someone else. At this point, it seems her parents [ if anyone ] should be the involved parties here - not the courts, not her estranged husband, or popular opinion. Not to mention the media. As ghoulish as it seems, perhaps there is some sort of monetary gain involved here that the public doesn't know about.

I don't think money has anything to do with it whatsoever. Any money he would have seen from insurance has been spoken for by lawyers and the hospice.

He was offered money to relinquish his right to make decisions on her behalf and he turned it down. If monetary gain were a factor, why didn't he take the money? I don't think there's much mystery at all as to why he won't divorce her, he's trying to fulfill his obligation to her. We can judge his motives and speculate all we want, but we're not him.

Also, there is a large difference between a distant relative claiming a deceased person told them they wanted them to have something and the legal next of kin making a decision on behalf of a person who can no longer make a decision.

I agree with Indie. The notion that he has not divorced her because only in this capacity can he carry out the wishes she expressed to him as her loving husband shouldn't be tossed out.

I can understand the position of those who've posted in disagreement, and even though I believe strongly for myself on the subject, it has been one of mixed feelings for me, but unlike cinnamon, even without a living will I trust my husband to make the right choices by me. Just because I haven't written it down doesn't mean I don't want my husband to do it. Of course, we HAVE discussed it at length, and amongst more people than just we two. Every member of my extended family except my toddler is witness to my wishes, and in part because of this case. It could never be my parents' word against my husband's because they both heard it from me. I fully intend to HAVE a living will, but until I have the money to make one, that will have to do and I'm confident that my wishes will be carried out.

It is true that we don't know, but then, what if her husband is telling the truth? What if this exactly what she wanted never to happen to her? What a horrible thing, to have expressed your wishes to your loving husband only to have them dashed aside by well-meaning parents, who I still believe are acting at least to some extent in their own self-interest. I can't see how, if I were put in this position, I could feel any different. That drive to keep her living so that she isn't DEAD, they don't have to plan a funeral and grieve her passing and know that their daughter is dead and say that their daughter is dead. Even if they don't admit it to themselves I believe those thoughts have played a part in this choice because I know they would in my case. How could they not?

I also saw on the news that even making a living will does not neccessarily mean that your wishes will be carried out.This is just the First step in the process, apparently there is more documentation needed to prevent a family member overturning your wishes.
I would not want to live in a vegetative state when I know something better awaits me.

There are several factors in this case which just don't seem to add up for me, after I did a little looking around.

According to a Florida state statute, Ms. Schiavo does not even technically fit the definition of someone with Persistant Vegetative State [PVS]. This has been attested to by an independent team of 14 doctors, six of them neurologists. Apparently she has enough frontal lobe function to recognize individual faces.

Since her initial collapse due to a heart attack in 1990, Ms. Schiavo, after an initial evaluation period, has been denied any kind of "significant physical therapy" by her husband. He also ordered her medical records sealed to anyone but himself and his law team.

According to the independent team assigned to the investigation, she would have "profited greatly " from such a course of treatment. Of
the 1.2 million dollars awarded her husband by the court to be spent on her future medical expenses, almost $397,000. has been paid to Schiavo's lawyer. Other large sums of the same award have been spent on various non - medical expenses.
Her husband has also banned various close family members from seeing the woman since 2000, even in the presence of hospital personnel.

I also find that most major publications print their own spin concerning these events, and it will be dificult to rely on the media alone for a true interpretation. There is obviously information the public may never have access to.

Quote:

---

We would not inflict such punishment upon the most heinous dregs of society. Image the outrage if we treated deathrow inmates in such a manner. Image the international outrage if we subjected Al Queda prisoners to starvation. This is a basic violation of human rights. Yet it is good enough for the likes of TS because she simply isn't "normal". If her husband, doctors, and the courts insist on killing this woman the least they can do is give her a lethal injection and make it quick. We give that basic courtesy to worst criminals of society and many even consider that barbaric. So I'm just wondering why TS deserves much worse.

---

That`s a great paragraph Diehard, wish I had written it.
Edited to add the following information, I could have added it before but desired to see what people had to say, based on newspaper reports.
From here btw.

Quote:

---

MYTH: Terri is PVS (Persistent vegetative state)
FACT: The definition of PVS in Florida Statue 765.101:
Persistent vegetative state means a permanent and irreversible condition of unconsciousness in which there is:

(a) The absence of voluntary action or cognitive behavior of ANY kind.
(b) An inability to communicate or interact purposefully with the environment.

Terri's behavior does not meet the medical or statutory definition of persistent vegetative state. Terri responds to stimuli, tries to communicate verbally, follows limited commands, laughs or cries in interaction with loved ones, physically distances herself from irritating or painful stimulation and watches loved ones as they move around her. None of these behaviors are simple reflexes and are, instead, voluntary and cognitive. Though Terri has limitations, she does interact purposefully with her environment.

---

Quote:

---

MYTH: Terri does not need rehabilitation
FACT: Florida Statute 744.3215 Rights of persons determined incapacitated:

(1) A person who has been determined to be incapacitated retains the right
(i) To receive necessary services and rehabilitation.

This is a retained right that a guardian cannot take away. Additionally, it does not make exception for PVS patients. Terri has illegally been denied rehabilitation - as many nurses have sworn in affidavits.

---

Quote:

---

MYTH: Many doctors have said that there is no hope for her.
FACT: Dr. Victor Gambone testified that he visits Terri 3 times a year. His visits last for approximately 10 minutes. He also testified, after viewing the court videotapes at Terri’s recent trial, that he was surprised to see Terri’s level of awareness. This doctor is part of a team hand-picked by her husband, Michael Schiavo, shortly before he filed to have Terri’s feeding removed. Contrary to Schiavo’s team, 14 independent medical professionals (6 of them neurologists) have given either statements or testimony that Terri is NOT in a Persistent Vegetative State. Additionally, there has never been any medical dispute of Terri’s ability to swallow. Even with this compelling evidence, Terri’s husband, Michael Schiavo, has denied any form of therapy for her for over 10 years.

Dr. Melvin Greer, appointed by Schiavo, testified that a doctor need not examine a patient to know the appropriate medical treatment. He spent approximately 45 minutes with Terri. Dr. Peter Bambakidis, appointed by Judge Greer, spent approximately 30 minutes with Terri. Dr. Ronald Cranford, also appointed by Schiavo and who has publicly labeled himself “Dr. Death”, spent less than 45 minutes examining and interacting with Terri.

---

There is much more information mentioned in that link.
Based on the above I find it hard to believe that people would condone the murder of this poor woman, yet be against the death penalty.
There are certainly many people with disabilities but where should the line be drawn? I believe Terri is on our side of the line, and should be kept there.

When I read the question, it asked "where the courts right?" not "should the feeding tube be removed". I haven't answered the second question except under hypothetical situations where it might pertain to myself. I can see both the sides of the husband and of the parents and prefer not to judge the motives of either.

I fail to see how either mine or anyone elses comments could have been misinterpreted as being in support of the removal of the feeding tube. I answered the question "were the courts right" and I believe they were, in so far as the position in which they were put. If there is truly a question as to whether Schiavo is fit to make decisions on his wife's behalf, there are ways to remove him from that position. But I believe the courts, having been involved with this case for quite some time, have heard more than enough evidence either way and determined it is not their jurisdiction, even if that IS based on one husband's assertion that he is following his wife's unwritten wishes.

Whether or not I believe this is a horrible way to die, whether or not I believe she does not deserve it, whether or not I believe she has a chance for recovery and whether or not I believe her parents or her husband have other motivations for wanting what they do, the fact is that IF her wishes WERE that she not be kept alive by artificial means, THIS qualifies.

In my dicussions with my husband, this type of situation has come up. I am not stupid. I go into it knowing full well what suffering would await me if that is how I had to go, but would I have him keep me alive, a shell of my former self, for 15 years just to save me that final pain? Not a chance in Hades. Do I deserve to be made to suffer like that? I don't think so. But does my husband deserve to be made to suffer like that? Surely not. And if I'm the one who's got brain damage, well, sacrifice me for crying out loud. And would I call him a murderer for doing so? Again, no.

But then, that is, as I said, my own personal feeling on the matter, as it pertains to myself only.

Where it pertains to Terri Schiavo, I cannot say, because we do not know FOR SURE what her wishes were. But I believe the courts have ruled correctly when it comes to the rulings they've been asked to make. I won't say whether I think they've been asked to make the right rulings.

I have to reply to the FAQ above.

Please realize that all of this material was taken from the website of Terri's parents and supporters. Of course they are going to spin things a bit.

There is no evidence that Terri is truly conscious. The snippets of video circulating on the Internet were culled from hours and hours of footage, to choose moments that appeared to show cognition, such as laughing and smiling. However, such moments could be entirely coincidental. According the the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke:

Quote:

---

A persistent vegetative state (commonly, but incorrectly, referred to as "brain-death") sometimes follows a coma. Individuals in such a state have lost their thinking abilities and awareness of their surroundings, but retain non-cognitive function and normal sleep patterns. Even though those in a persistent vegetative state lose their higher brain functions, other key functions such as breathing and circulation remain relatively intact. Spontaneous movements may occur, and the eyes may open in response to external stimuli. They may even occasionally grimace, cry, or laugh. Although individuals in a persistent vegetative state may appear somewhat normal, they do not speak and they are unable to respond to commands.

---

As the Florida trial court stated:

Quote:

---

At first blush, the video of Terry Schiavo appearing to smile and look lovingly at her mother seemed to represent cognition. This was also true for how she followed the Mickey Mouse balloon held by her father. The court has carefully viewed the videotapes as requested by counsel and does find that these actions were neither consistent nor reproducible. For instance, Terry Schiavo appeared to have the same look on her face when Dr. Cranford rubbed her neck. Dr. Greer testified she had a smile during his (non-videoed) examination. Also, Mr. Schindler tried several more times to have her eyes follow the Mickey Mouse balloon but without success. Also, she clearly does not consistently respond to her mother. The court finds that based on the credible evidence, cognitive function would manifest itself in a constant response to stimuli.

---

This trial court also reviewed all of the video available before making this statement, and noted that "Terri's actions were no more than reflexive and could not be reproduced with any consistency."

Latest news.......

Quote:

---

WASHINGTON — President Bush (search) has signed a bill designed to save the life of a severely brain-damaged woman, after lawmakers passed the measure at a late-night emergency session of Congress. The so-called "Palm Sunday Compromise" allows a federal court to review the case of Terri Schiavo (search), whose husband Michael had the feeding tube that keeps her alive removed.

The House of Representatives (search) voted 203-58 in favor of the bill shortly after midnight; the Senate unanimously passed it on Sunday afternoon. The president cut short a visit to his Texas ranch and returned to the White House for a chance to sign the measure, which he did at 1:11 a.m. EST.

"In cases like this one, where there are serious questions and substantial doubts, our society, our laws and our courts should have a presumption in favor of life," Bush said in a statement after signing the bill

---

More here.

The supreme court will most likely overturn the bill as unconstitutional.

One thing to add to what CrisW has said. The panel of doctors cited were hired by Teri's family. Of course, they're going to say that she will recover.

While I don't hold the media in high esteem, it is important to examine issues like this one from every angle. The family has their spin, a former nurse has her spin, he husband has his spin and the media have theirs.

It scares me to think that Congress can step in the way they have. I would have thought there would have been outraged cries from all over at the way Congress has trumped the courts. They have no right to do what they've done and it files in the face of their claims that they are for state's rights.

It's the responsibility of Congress to make laws. That is not trumping the courts, that is part of our checks and balances. We may not always like or agree with the laws enacted but you make your views known by corresponding with your Congressmen and voting.

The outrage is how the courts too often trump the will of the people as expressed through their elected representatives by imposing a single judge's own, often, contorted views. But that is another thread for CI,...oops, I mean CE.

I disagree. Congress is not making a law in this case. The bill they signed is not a law banning feeding tubes from being removed at all, it's a bill ordering the courts to examine the case again. Therefore, they are forcing the courts to re-examine an issue which has already passed through the courts.

I'm confused as to how this is carrying out the will of the people. The people, read American public, should not have any input in what was until recently a private decision. The courts afirmed this already.

Say what you will, congress is trumping the courts.

Sadly, this case stopped being about Terri and her situation a long time ago.

I have plenty more to say on the subject, but it really belongs in a CI formum, so I'll keep mum.

Much has been written here about the Terri Schiavo case. So, I’ll weigh in with a personal opinion, too.
Terri died fifteen years ago. This is hard to understand or accept because she still breathes without mechanical assistance; her sightless eyes dart around her hospital room; her mouth makes unintelligible sounds; her ears hear but her brain doesn’t differentiate one sound from another.
Terri’s autonomic nervous system, her brain stem, still functions giving the outward appearance of life, of awareness of her family who brushes her hair, holds her hand, speaks in a reassuring and loving voice as opposed to the strangers who pour liquid nourishment into her feeding tube, change her bedding and regulate her hospital room temperature.

But, Terri, the woman is not there.

The family, the nation, and now the world, waits for a miracle. With continued care she could live a ‘normal’ life span. Her parents gone, her aging sister still making weekly trips to see her. An occasional mention of her condition printed in the newspapers. Young medical interns making visits to study this medical condition known as a “persistent vegetative state.”
She may also die soon of muscle atrophy, pneumonia or her heart just may give out. We wait and wonder.

Fifteen years. Oh man, let her go.