Please pray for Terri Schiavo

Key Lime Lee · Post by **Key Lime Lee** » March 2, 2005 12:27 am

Sam wrote:Surely you do not expect people to roll over like a dog, and offer their belly and throat in submission..... do you?

Not you, of course. That's only expected of folks who disagree with(read "attack") you.

captainjoe · Post by **captainjoe** » March 2, 2005 12:34 am

Is it just me, or is Sam really Ann Coulter in real life?

ejr · Post by **ejr** » March 2, 2005 12:37 am

It is disappointing to me that a discussion that has, for the most part, been a good discussion of the issues has taken a turn (hopefully temporary) to less than constructive conversation.

Sam, I know that you have had to deal with more than most of us. I was fortunate in that when my mother had her massive heart attack, and had a flat line brain scan, she was able to come off life support, and die on her own. But my father and I had the discussion, and, if needed we would have terminated life support-he struggled with this more than I did, but it was a painful decision to consider.

I have watched the parents of a friend who remained in a coma for 17 years before dying, and watched the toll it took on them-I describe it as a tightrope that gets narrower every day.

It seems likely that you and I would, if needed, make different decisions, and that is ok-I respect that. But I also respect where the law is here. She had no living will. whether she told her husband or not (and it is a conversation one is more likely to have with a spouse than with a parent) the law says that the call is his to make. If the husband wanted to keep her alive, I would disagree, but respect his right to make that decision on his wife's behalf.

Stephen Hawkins is an entirely different situation-he has the ability to make the decision himself, and to direct his care in a way that Terri does not.

What has happened to Terri is terribly sad, and this battle is incredibly sad--nobody will easily forget it. And while the ethics involved her are often a slippery slope, and while finding that fine line is incredibly difficult, I do not find this case especially difficult. The courts should not be involved, Jeb Bush should not be involved, and her parents, sad as it is, do not have a say in this. It may not be fair, but that is the way the law sees it.

Gulfbreeze · Post by **Gulfbreeze** » March 2, 2005 12:40 am

ejr wrote:It is disappointing to me that a discussion that has, for the most part, been a good discussion of the issues has taken a turn (hopefully temporary) to less than constructive conversation.

Sam, I know that you have had to deal with more than most of us. I was fortunate in that when my mother had her massive heart attack, and had a flat line brain scan, she was able to come off life support, and die on her own. But my father and I had the discussion, and, if needed we would have terminated life support-he struggled with this more than I did, but it was a painful decision to consider.

I have watched the parents of a friend who remained in a coma for 17 years before dying, and watched the toll it took on them-I describe it as a tightrope that gets narrower every day.

It seems likely that you and I would, if needed, make different decisions, and that is ok-I respect that. But I also respect where the law is here. She had no living will. whether she told her husband or not (and it is a conversation one is more likely to have with a spouse than with a parent) the law says that the call is his to make. If the husband wanted to keep her alive, I would disagree, but respect his right to make that decision on his wife's behalf.

Stephen Hawkins is an entirely different situation-he has the ability to make the decision himself, and to direct his care in a way that Terri does not.

What has happened to Terri is terribly sad, and this battle is incredibly sad--nobody will easily forget it. And while the ethics involved her are often a slippery slope, and while finding that fine line is incredibly difficult, I do not find this case especially difficult. The courts should not be involved, Jeb Bush should not be involved, and her parents, sad as it is, do not have a say in this. It may not be fair, but that is the way the law sees it.

ParrotheadGator · Post by **ParrotheadGator** » March 2, 2005 5:52 am

Sam wrote:
ParrotheadGator wrote:
Bocanut wrote:Now the parents are attempting to move for a divorce. Good Lord!!!!!!!!!

Now who's the scum bags?
True. I think the parents are being very selfish in this situation. Sure, they don't want to give up hope...but even the slightest reality check would be nice

Do you have any children ? What would you do to save their life? Woul you consider yourself selfish for wanting to give them every chance you could?

Note that the article says she alledgedly only told him ONE time. No witnesses....no one else ever heard her say it.......

Michael Schiavo says his wife, who has spent 15 years in what doctors call a vegetative state, once told him she would never want to be kept alive artificially. Her parents have fought his efforts but Pinellas Circuit Court Judge George Greer ruled that Schiavo can have her feeding tube removed on March 18.
Seems pretty thin to me with the money involved....

I never said one thing about what she allegedly told him. That's not the issue in my opinion. The issue is that she's been a veg for 15 stinkin' years. She's NOT coming back.

But no, I don't have kids. I have married though, and even though I love my wife, I wouldn't sit beside her hospital bed while she's a veg, day in and day out, for 15 long years. At some point, a person has to move on. The parents should have done the same. Yeah, it's sad when a parent has to lose a child....and you speak of "what a parent would do"...what ARE the parents doing? Keeping her artificially alive so they can stare at her basically lifeless body day in and day out? The entire situation has ruined many years of the husbands life and the parents life. If she had died after a year or two, which would have been my limit, the parents would have mourned, blah blah and after another year or whatever, eventually gotten to enjoy their retirement or whatever, at least relax...not spend all their time in a hospital. There is just no justification for keeping person who's practically dead alive just because you don't want them gone.

mermaidindisguise · Post by **mermaidindisguise** » March 2, 2005 6:38 am

I've been reading everyones's comments and I am only TRULY disturbed by Sam's and the fact that the amount of time he (or she?) spent on this board would be better spent in therapy with all of the apparant issues of loss and devastation ... I will pray for you but please get some help... this is I think the wrong kind of board to get THAT upset and you would be better off with a therapist.

ph4ever · Post by **ph4ever** » March 2, 2005 9:11 am

Sam this is not pd at Cobo. There's no need to be so argumentative and hostile. People don't agree with your views - so what?? You're not going to change the minds of anyone of us that feels the feeding tube should be removed any more than we aren't going to change yours. To argue the point is disturbing.

Mr Play · Post by **Mr Play** » March 2, 2005 10:13 am

Sam -

In my post last night I tried to answer the questions about where I draw the line. Let me know if I missed any pressing questions, and I'll give them some serious thought. In return I'd like to ask a few questions of you.

Where do you draw the line?
What level of support should be given to keep someone in a vegetative state?
How long should the support be given?
Who should have authority to remove artificial support in the absence of a living will?
Who should be responsible for the financial cost - the husband? parents? insurance? tax money?

I am truly sorry for your losses. At this point I'm just trying to understand your position a little better.

ParrotheadGator · Post by **ParrotheadGator** » March 2, 2005 10:23 am

Four Play wrote: Who should be responsible for the financial cost - the husband? insurance? tax money?

In this situation, the parents should be paying the hospital bills (I have no idea who really is). Insurance and especially my tax dollars should not be paying for it.

Brown Eyed Girl · Post by **Brown Eyed Girl** » March 2, 2005 10:42 am

Sam wrote:
Brown Eyed Girl wrote:Sam I posed my questions simply to gain more insight into what you would have done if given the choice, since you had a similar situation. My questions were not related to your original questions, therefore I was not avoiding them. And yet it appears that over and over you have avoided answering the difficult questions asked of you by in turn asking more questions or refusing to until someone addresses yours, whether or not that was their point. That is the "game" I was referring to.

I gather from your response that quality of life to you means existing...breathing in and out, yet unable to care for yourself, do anything, and unable to voice any of your feelings. If you are fine with that, so be it. It would not be my choice...I might be alive but I would for sure not be living.

I have to wonder, if given the choice, would Terri continue to want to exist like this? Or would she take her own life if she was capable of doing so, rather than existing.
Infer what you will..when people decide to answer me or deem my questions worthy of answers then I will consider questions asked of me to be such. I mean this as no insult to you or to anyone. As I stated I want answers...you see how many I have gotten ...Why do you feel you deserve answers more than I do???

Since someone accused me of obsseing with Stephen Hawking let me ask you.....how much can he do for himself? Would you kill him simply because he is incapable of feeding himself?

No matter what nice name anyone wants to call it it is still killing.....and the taking of a life..........that is what it comes down to....Who knows what Terri would say in her own defense.she breathes on her own.she needs a feeding tube......using that analogy ....what does that say about everyone else on a feeding tube that is in a coma or vegitative state? We want to do what is kindest for the person, I believe all of us really do, But letting someone starve to death when there is no reason for it other than the supposed mention of it only once..... To someone that will gain financially upon her death.....Who will the courts decide who dies next... the courts are not triage nor are they allowed to practice medicine...that I know of...
do you know different?

Sam, I have read back and people HAVE replied to your questions, maybe you need to go reread the thread, although I think it would be better it you walked away. Does everyone who posts on the is thread have to answer YOUR questions in order for you to answer theirs? I see that as a cop out, a way for you to avoid perhaps contradicting yourself. I may be wrong, but until you stop the game playing none of us will ever know. And many of your questions were retorical anyway.

I don't think anyone is advocating killing those we deem as mentally handicapped, deformed, whatever scenario you stated. But I do think we should take a good hard look at some of the heroic measures we take to prolong life...when the end result is mere existence. That is my own opinion however.

Steven Hawkins is an entirely different case. His mind still works while his body is failing him. He has the ability to make his own decisions. Terri's mind no longer works, she's trapped in her body with no way out as long as she is being kept alive artificially.

You keep saying her husband will gain financially. Can you please post some info to that effect? Lord knows the money she was awarded ran out LONG ago...probably within the first year.

Mr Play · Post by **Mr Play** » March 2, 2005 10:45 am

ParrotheadGator wrote:
Four Play wrote: Who should be responsible for the financial cost - the husband? insurance? tax money?
In this situation, the parents should be paying the hospital bills (I have no idea who really is). Insurance and especially my tax dollars should not be paying for it.

Thanks - I thought I had the parents as one of my choices...

Mr Play · Post by **Mr Play** » March 2, 2005 10:49 am

Brown Eyed Girl wrote:You keep saying her husband will gain financially. Can you please post some info to that effect? Lord knows the money she was awarded ran out LONG ago...probably within the first year.

At least one article said the husband stands to gain $1 Million in insurance money when she dies, so I think that's where Sam is coming from. That's the tough part for me, is wondering about the husband's real motive. Even so, it doesn't change my position.

LIPH · Post by **LIPH** » March 2, 2005 10:52 am

captainjoe wrote:Is it just me, or is Sam really Ann Coulter in real life?

Ann Coulter has better hair, nicer legs and is much better looking. But other than that . . .

Just trying to lighten the mood a little.

LIPH · Post by **LIPH** » March 2, 2005 10:55 am

In my opinion, there's a huge difference between living and existing. I want to be alive, I don't want to merely exist. If the only way I could exist was to be hooked up to all kinds of machines with tubes sticking out of me, pull the damn plug.

ph4ever · Post by **ph4ever** » March 2, 2005 11:02 am

LIPH wrote:In my opinion, there's a huge difference between living and existing. I want to be alive, I don't want to merely exist. If the only way I could exist was to be hooked up to all kinds of machines with tubes sticking out of me, pull the damn plug.

yep - agreed 100%. To me life is more than existance.

ParrotheadGator · Post by **ParrotheadGator** » March 2, 2005 11:16 am

Four Play wrote:
Brown Eyed Girl wrote:You keep saying her husband will gain financially. Can you please post some info to that effect? Lord knows the money she was awarded ran out LONG ago...probably within the first year.
At least one article said the husband stands to gain $1 Million in insurance money when she dies, so I think that's where Sam is coming from. That's the tough part for me, is wondering about the husband's real motive. Even so, it doesn't change my position.

Who cares if he profits or not. After putting up with this (and her parents) for 15 years, he deserves it. My patience and tolerance would have warn out long ago.

PalmettoSon · Post by **PalmettoSon** » March 2, 2005 11:52 am

ParrotheadGator wrote:
Four Play wrote:
Brown Eyed Girl wrote:You keep saying her husband will gain financially. Can you please post some info to that effect? Lord knows the money she was awarded ran out LONG ago...probably within the first year.
At least one article said the husband stands to gain $1 Million in insurance money when she dies, so I think that's where Sam is coming from. That's the tough part for me, is wondering about the husband's real motive. Even so, it doesn't change my position.
Who cares if he profits or not. After putting up with this (and her parents) for 15 years, he deserves it. My patience and tolerance would have warn out long ago.

As I recall, he has offered to put that money toward charitable causes in an attempt to prove that he doesn't care about the money, but rather about his wife. Now I'm not about to make a claim that I know his intentions, or that I think he's a great guy, but it seems to me that he has been trying to do what he thinks she wants. As far as whether or not he's still devoted to her, I don't know. I have heard that he lives with another woman now, and that they may even have a child together. That said, remember that if she really did wish to not be kept artificially alive, she would have been dead over a decade ago, and in his mind, she probably has been gone since then.

SchoolGirlHeart · Post by **SchoolGirlHeart** » March 2, 2005 12:01 pm

PalmettoSon wrote:As I recall, he has offered to put that money toward charitable causes in an attempt to prove that he doesn't care about the money, but rather about his wife. Now I'm not about to make a claim that I know his intentions, or that I think he's a great guy, but it seems to me that he has been trying to do what he thinks she wants. As far as whether or not he's still devoted to her, I don't know. I have heard that he lives with another woman now, and that they may even have a child together. That said, remember that if she really did wish to not be kept artificially alive, she would have been dead over a decade ago, and in his mind, she probably has been gone since then.

I hope it's true that he would give away the money; it would make me far more comfortable that his decisions are based on her welfare, only.

I don't see that he has to be a martyr, though. Let's say he *knew* that she wanted to be kept alive, and that he agreed with her parents on that issue.... Why would that necessarily require him to forfeit the rest of his life waiting for a wife who isn't coming back to him?

Why would it be so horrible for him to move on and have a relationship with another woman, and have children if he wanted to? If I were in a vegetative state, I wouldn't want my husband to be a martyr, but to move on with his life..... (I, personally, would want the feeding tube removed in that situation, and have made my wishes crystal clear to my family, but that's another subject...)

ph4ever · Post by **ph4ever** » March 2, 2005 12:10 pm

Terri is what - 41 years old?? This has been going on for 15 years which put her at appx 25 when it happened. In all honesty how many of us proclaiming the importance of a living will actually had one when we were 25?? Yes being older and somewhat wiser now we all know and realize the importance of a living will. I can remember when I was 25 I would have never told my parents - don't leave me on life support. I would have assumed they would know that being that they know so much about me. I can see me telling my then husband that and not telling my parents.

SchoolGirlHeart · Post by **SchoolGirlHeart** » March 2, 2005 12:18 pm

ph4ever wrote:Terri is what - 41 years old?? This has been going on for 15 years which put her at appx 25 when it happened. In all honesty how many of us proclaiming the importance of a living will actually had one when we were 25?? Yes being older and somewhat wiser now we all know and realize the importance of a living will. I can remember when I was 25 I would have never told my parents - don't leave me on life support. I would have assumed they would know that being that they know so much about me. I can see me telling my then husband that and not telling my parents.

You're right.... Most of us weren't even thinking of such things when we were 25... And most would have shared with a spouse or a friend, rather than parents, if at all... When I was 25, living wills were for old people, not for us, the young, invincible ones.... It's a shame it takes a situation like this one to make us realize how fragile life can be, and how no matter what our age, we need to make sure we convey OUR desires to our loved ones.