BuffettNews.com

I'm 25.

I don't want to just exist til I'm 41...

I'm thinking pretty heavy about this living will thing...

DonnaKayDunbar wrote:I'm 25.

I don't want to just exist til I'm 41...

I'm thinking pretty heavy about this living will thing...

I once had a doctor tell me that it's almost MORE important that your relatives know what you want than what you put on paper (this goes for organ donation, too)... In this situation, he said, you'll be unable to speak for yourself, and any lawsuits that might be brought against the hospital or doctors will be brought by those who CAN speak for you, your relatives, so he said to make absolutely sure your primary next of kin knows what you want and is ready and willing to carry it out...

At the time that Terri collapsed living wills were not very widely used, not even among senior citizens.

This is a subject that most of us are more likely to discuss with a spouse than a parent. Regardless of my opinion of the husband, I think that he probably has the best understanding of what Terri would want.

That's wild. That would be back in the early 90's. Not that I don't believe you E it's because that shortly after my mom died in 81 my dad had one and gave copies to me, my half brother, his doctor etc...

I just thought they were more common by the late 80's

SchoolGirlHeart wrote:

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.

By 25, most people have been around family members deaths and have likely discussed it at some point. After watching my grandfather die a somewhat slow and painful death, my family(parents, wife, etc) knows damn well that if I'm not going to be back near 100%, pull the plug

I transported a lot of nursing home patients when I started working for a private ambulance company in the early 90's. Probably less than 10% of the nursing home patients had living wills at that time.

Many people that had their wishes put in writing, did so because of the experiences of a loved one. They were motivated after they (or their family) saw how it would've benefitted the patient and everyone else when that loved one had been seriously ill.

Living wills, advanced directives and other documents are more widely used now than they've ever been.

Its in God's hands and just be greatful none of us have to deal with this tragedy..............

SchoolGirlHeart wrote: I once had a doctor tell me that it's almost MORE important that your relatives know what you want than what you put on paper (this goes for organ donation, too)... In this situation, he said, you'll be unable to speak for yourself, and any lawsuits that might be brought against the hospital or doctors will be brought by those who CAN speak for you, your relatives, so he said to make absolutely sure your primary next of kin knows what you want and is ready and willing to carry it out...

Very true on the organ donation. My driver's license says I want to donate my organs. But next of kin still has to give permission to harvest. And if he/she says no, then the doctors can't proceed, no matter what the driver's license says. And a living will or such wouldn't make much difference either since organs have to be harvested right away. In an accident situation, usually by the time the paperwork is found it's too late to donate. Make sure your loved ones know your wishes before hand!

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.

while I'm, albeit, on the fence with this, the above statement irks me.
IF the husband has say... then HE should pay the bills.
IF the parents are footing the bill it should be their choice...

LaTda wrote:

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.

while I'm, albeit, on the fence with this, the above statement irks me.
IF the husband has say... then HE should pay the bills.
IF the parents are footing the bill it should be their choice...

This is exactly the reason why you have insurance.

But, HE is footing the bill.

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.

thanks Bill...I just wasn't sure if there was more money involved than the initial settlement and wanted clarification.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/01/brain ... index.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=531632&page=1

Just some information I found.....

LaTda wrote:

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.

while I'm, albeit, on the fence with this, the above statement irks me.
IF the husband has say... then HE should pay the bills.
IF the parents are footing the bill it should be their choice...

at least we must agree that our tax dollars aren't paying for it

but my point is, if the husband hast he say, she would have been dead a long time ago, most likely...say like 14 years ago. Then the bill would be no issue. The parents are the ones keeping her alive, so they should pay it.

Hell, let Jeb BUsh pay for it out of his pocket since he thought it was his place to intervene.

Sam,

You will not win here.
First, it seems that when "someone” so much as passes gas, these regulars sniff deeply. No offense, just something I seemed to notice, and yes, people can be the most condescending arrogant people when they want to be, which is basically when they hide behind a computer. So relax Sam.

Ok, now back on track to the Shiavo affair. All too often people speak about something before they enlighten themselves with the facts. I myself like to get the facts out there. Simply hugging someone for the sake of hugs, well, that sounds like such fun, but when you do this, you never know when you’re hugging the devil and trust me, he is in the hug line.

Ok, the “facts” may never be known here, but what each of you have failed to mention (one fella started but I only came in because he didn’t finish) is that yes, Michael Schiavo would not allow Terri to get “help”. Some of you “ripped” her parents harshly for wanting to keep her alive, if you knew some of the facts, you would be embarrassed (or should be) for what you said.

Here is how I heard it (just something to think about)

Michael AND TERRI, were awarded millions (about 12 I think) from a lawsuit (I believe from suing the doctors, would have to check the records) They did not receive about 70% of that because the court found Terri 70% responsible for her condition (Due to her self-vomiting that “they say” gave her the heart attack that put her in her condition) so figure about 3 million went to Michael…and….err….Terri?

Now Michael fought hard, he stated he needed this money to give Terri the best care he could give her. He “loved her”. He knew that rehab would be BIG BUCKS!. He (they) won the settlement. They (he) got the money.

Michael then shut Terri’s “rehab” down. Notes were left for the nurses to keep the TV off, the radio off, no attention was given to her in anyway unless it was something Michael couldn’t prevent (By the way, that girl that was in the coma for 20 years, and came out last month? Reports came out that she had knowledge of events that happened AFTER she went into that coma, why?, the radio and TV were on! I don’t know if this is true, but it was reported.)

Ok, so Michael at times being “heard through the hospital walls” (fact) saying “When’s the b**** gonna die” and many other lovely caring sediments, is only NOW (after the Money is gone) saying that Terri told him that she didn’t want to live in a state similar to the one she is in now. No proof of this, no living will, just something he claims she said. But why didn’t he suggest that in court? When he (they) were going for the money?? Curious.

The parents, who in the past, have suggested Michael was “in it for the money” have offered Michael, in the past, the opportunity to just keep the money and let them have Terri. He wouldn’t allow it. They just want Terri. They say, leave us, let us rehab her or at least try…no said Michael.

Question!

Why does Michael want her to die? Why did he want her alive while money was coming in and she couldn’t talk? There are some that think she has dirt on Michael and possibly…POSSIBLY! The story of her condition may have been attributed to something more. He has reportedly been a bastard to her during their married life, many statements have been made about that, and possibly reasons why she began the anorexia in the first place. But lets move on…

Jeb Bush (who one of you trashed earlier because, well, I can see no other reason other than “Bush bashing”) Was enlightened to some of this speculation and decided to try to clear it up before she was put to death and the facts to be buried with her. BAD MAN! Isn’t he? But I guess if Jimmy Buffett stepped in and did this for Terri you would all be out cleaning highways and holding signs…don’t lie, you now you would have, and that’s disgusting.

Ok, so its easy to just push this into an argument of having a living will, or to attack each others Great Uncle, or whatever you are all doing now with this thread. May I suggest a little reading of the facts may be in order?. Leave her poor parents (and Jeb) alone and ask yourself how YOU would be if you were bedridden and your caretaker decided not to cut your finger nails, clean your body, get feminine hygiene, have your teeth cleaned so they fall out, and on and on and on…for 15 years!, THEN! We decided to take your food away.

If you don’t know what you’re commenting about, please think about whether or not you should comment. Her parents have NOT been able to test her 15 years OR help her! That comment someone made about them was ignorant, gross, and way out of line.


P.S.

I have had family members in Florida be under care of others…I KNOW Florida really well. I have “horror stories, ”DON’T think these accusations are not possible.

BestWurst wrote: Here is how I heard it (just something to think about)

That line represents that you only heard one version of it. That, right there, indicates that you are trying to pass off your "version" as fact. Nice try.

captainjoe wrote:

BestWurst wrote: Here is how I heard it (just something to think about)

That line represents that you only heard one version of it. That, right there, indicates that you are trying to pass off your "version" as fact. Nice try.

Wow.
that is quite a leap.
That's clearly NOT what i said. But you know that.

but i will briefly reply...

Better to hear one version and report it as such for the purpose of thought, than to be completely ignorant on the topic and toss out an uneducated opinion in a public forum.

No one really knows the truth but Michael (and God if you believe in that sort of thing).

No offense but, i clearly stated it was what i "heard" as to avoid a comment like this. You however...felt compelled i suppose.

You should try to stay on topic.

captainjoe wrote:

BestWurst wrote: Here is how I heard it (just something to think about)

That line represents that you only heard one version of it. That, right there, indicates that you are trying to pass off your "version" as fact. Nice try.

I agree...
Also...lets say for instance that what the husband did/said is true. That he was/is an ass, is in it for the money...that really makes no difference. The bottom line is that no one should have to live like that. She is no more than a piece of furniture hooked up to electronics in her current state. I know that sounds harsh, but thats really what she is. Let her out of that life..let her go on peacefully to whatever is next after this life....its embarrassing to any kind of legacy she would like people to remember her by.

BestWurst wrote:You should try to stay on topic.

And we should ALL try to do that, and keep the personal comments to each other to a minimum. Thanks.

Best I just have this question for you. Who are you?? On your first post you come here and speak with authority about the people here so either you are a long time lurker or a regular poster that dosn't have the balls to post your opinion under your real name.

Personally I have been following this case for over a year now. At first I was behind the parents 100% then the more I learned about the case I came to realize that she's never ever going to regain any type of life as we know it back. She reminds me of my grandmother right before she passed away from Alzheimer's. Very little there yet ever rare now and then a spark will shine and then quickly fade away.

Should her husband have allowed her parents to try to rehap her? Probably so - it would have been the nice thing to do however the law is on his side in this. When you consider the countless people who lived together in the past who had a partner ill or pass away and the law didn't afford the remaining partner any rights and they were shunned from the hospital/funeral home by the family it clearly indicates a drastic need for changes in the laws of many states.

Could Terri possibly recover and face a life in a non vegative state? Well miracles do happen but the prognosis for this is extremely doubtful.

Since I don't know you I don't know if you are a parent. I don't believe Sam is a parent either. I am a parent. My son means more to me than life itself. I would die or kill for my son. But I would never ever leave him in this state for 15 years nor would he want me to. If I ever would be faced with such a gut wrenching decision to make such as this I would make this decision. And I'm no stranger to this decision being made - I've been there in the room with my aunt and my cousin's wife when they made the decision to turn off his life support so I do know what I speak of. The Terri her parents knew will never come back.

SMLCHNG wrote:

BestWurst wrote:You should try to stay on topic.

And we should ALL try to do that, and keep the personal comments to each other to a minimum. Thanks.

If Shane was here could I still make fun of him?