I understand this topic may be controversial, but I for one am sickned by this event. I forgot what state it was, but someone got arrested for starving their cattle. We can starve a human being to death, but not animals? Also, how can Terry's husband be living with another woman, have kids with this person, and still say he loves Terry? Would you be with another woman knowing that your wife is still alive and sick? Not me. I don't care how long Terry's been in the state that she has. You just don't go off with another woman. What happened to the vows that say death till you part? In my opinion, I'm not so sure of the accuracy of Terry's husband saying that she want's to die. From all the info I gathered/heard, this is far from it. I don't think this guy cares about Terry at all. I can't even imagine what Terry's parents are going through. Let's pray for Terry and her family.
Terry Schiavo
- Thread starter III
- Start date
Schiavo timeline:
http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/timeline.htm
I agree, we should grieve for the family. But read the supporting documents; the husband is OK. This case has been reviewed SCRUPULOUSLY by courts, physicians and clergy from BOTH sides, and the husband passes clean.
It's sad, and terrible, and awful, no matter what happens.
Tom
http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/timeline.htm
I agree, we should grieve for the family. But read the supporting documents; the husband is OK. This case has been reviewed SCRUPULOUSLY by courts, physicians and clergy from BOTH sides, and the husband passes clean.
It's sad, and terrible, and awful, no matter what happens.
Tom
I have a problem with the feeding tube being pulled as well. She is not in pain, she is not terminal and despite what it sounds like on the news, she is not a vegetable; yet is seems a whole lot of people seem willing to starve her to death.
We don't starve convicted murderers to death.
We don't starve convicted murderers to death.
I am also bothered by the whole thing. Why is the husband making the decision and not the family? If the family wants to keep their daughter alive, how can the husband want her dead because the husband "knows" what Terri would have wanted?
I say release Terri to her family, and the husband no longer needs to be the guardian. If the family wants to keep her alive, the family can pay the money for the medical care. END of DISCUSSION. Are there any parents out there willing to see their son or daughter starve or dehydrate to death even if by science a person in vegetative state feels no pain?
I say release Terri to her family, and the husband no longer needs to be the guardian. If the family wants to keep her alive, the family can pay the money for the medical care. END of DISCUSSION. Are there any parents out there willing to see their son or daughter starve or dehydrate to death even if by science a person in vegetative state feels no pain?
Spilchy
New member
This case has brought to light the importance of having a living will. The husband indicated in court that she would NEVER have wanted to be kept in this state. He has spent all his money on this case and has declined money (millions) from private individuals and right to life organizations to keep her alive.
There are thousands of cases like this. The "plug" is often pulled on people. You talk about the death penalty. Innocent people have been put to death by the State. Innocent people sit today on death row waiting to be killed by the State. The Republican Governor in Illinois stopped executiuons a couple years ago because of so many innocent people on death row. Where is moral outrage from those of you who oppose the cort ruling about Terri? This bears repeating - States kill innocent people after they spend YEARS on death row.
Based on Terriâ€â„¢s CAT scan, her cerebral cortex has basically turned to liquid. The cerebral cortex is the seat of all our higher brain functions. Without a cerebral cortex, it is impossible for a human being to experience thought, emotions, consciousness, pain, pleasure, or anything at all. IT IS NOT possible for a patient lacking a cerebral cortex to recover.
I believe it's the right decision. I feel it's insane for the Congress and President to be involved in such an intrusive way, using this woman as a political football to satisfy the religious base of the conservative voting block. After all, many Evangelicals feel the President has not been using his political capital on their agenda despite the fact they seriously helped him get re-elected.
Most polls from varying news organizations show staunch support for the decision among Americans, the right of the husband and that the government should not be involved. EVERY person I spoke to about this all say they would NEVER want to be kept alive like that for decades, nor would they want any of their family memebrs to be like that. Would you?
This is a private matter among the family, the courts on all levels have spoken, and people need to respect that. One's religious views should be kept to themselves and not define the manner in which this woman is to live out her life.
I too find it upsetting over the whole starving angle. From what I have read, she is in NO pain and as she is starved, she will continue to feel no pain.
This is very tough, but should be left up to the family and the courts to decide.
Update: The Supreme Court refused to hear the case. Governor Jeb Bush's legislation to have her taken into State custody was rebuffed.
There are thousands of cases like this. The "plug" is often pulled on people. You talk about the death penalty. Innocent people have been put to death by the State. Innocent people sit today on death row waiting to be killed by the State. The Republican Governor in Illinois stopped executiuons a couple years ago because of so many innocent people on death row. Where is moral outrage from those of you who oppose the cort ruling about Terri? This bears repeating - States kill innocent people after they spend YEARS on death row.
Based on Terriâ€â„¢s CAT scan, her cerebral cortex has basically turned to liquid. The cerebral cortex is the seat of all our higher brain functions. Without a cerebral cortex, it is impossible for a human being to experience thought, emotions, consciousness, pain, pleasure, or anything at all. IT IS NOT possible for a patient lacking a cerebral cortex to recover.
I believe it's the right decision. I feel it's insane for the Congress and President to be involved in such an intrusive way, using this woman as a political football to satisfy the religious base of the conservative voting block. After all, many Evangelicals feel the President has not been using his political capital on their agenda despite the fact they seriously helped him get re-elected.
Most polls from varying news organizations show staunch support for the decision among Americans, the right of the husband and that the government should not be involved. EVERY person I spoke to about this all say they would NEVER want to be kept alive like that for decades, nor would they want any of their family memebrs to be like that. Would you?
This is a private matter among the family, the courts on all levels have spoken, and people need to respect that. One's religious views should be kept to themselves and not define the manner in which this woman is to live out her life.
I too find it upsetting over the whole starving angle. From what I have read, she is in NO pain and as she is starved, she will continue to feel no pain.
This is very tough, but should be left up to the family and the courts to decide.
Update: The Supreme Court refused to hear the case. Governor Jeb Bush's legislation to have her taken into State custody was rebuffed.
Scott P
New member
Terry is dead for all intents and purposes. She's been "dead" for years. People are getting emotions and religions mixed up with science and medicine.
What is disgusting to me is how politicians are using her for political gain. Tom DeLay was even caught on tape saying that the case was a windfall for Republicans. This private matter bewteen a husband and a wife has been put on a national stage for what reason?
She has no chance for recovery. It has been stated so by many doctors with much more medical experiance than any the people speaking only from a religious or emotional standpoint.
What is disgusting to me is how politicians are using her for political gain. Tom DeLay was even caught on tape saying that the case was a windfall for Republicans. This private matter bewteen a husband and a wife has been put on a national stage for what reason?
She has no chance for recovery. It has been stated so by many doctors with much more medical experiance than any the people speaking only from a religious or emotional standpoint.
DaGonz
Autopia fire/rescue.
A look at the original right to die case...
Local lawyer argued first feeding-tube removal case
By Michael Cox / Daily News Staff
Thursday, March 24, 2005
The last time Peter Gubellini saw a case create such a firestorm, he was standing in the middle of it.
That was almost 20 years ago, and Gubellini of Wellesley was lobbying the U.S. Supreme Court for one last chance to save a severely brain-injured man from what he still considers a gruesome death.
Now, as the battle over whether Terri Schiavo's feeding tube should be reinserted dominates the nation's headlines, Gubellini is reflecting on his own experiences as the first lawyer to argue such a case.
Over the years since his famous Brophy vs. New England Mount Sinai Hospital case, Gubellini has remained steadfast in his opinion that removing a feeding tube for the purpose of ending a life is the most inhumane way possible to allow someone to die. The notion, he said, is incompatible with the state's interest.
"Do we as a society really want to starve people to death?" he asked.
No longer a trial lawyer -- he made a career switch to teaching high school -- Gubellini has nevertheless followed the Schiavo story with great interest and has a unique respect for the complexities of the case.
Like the Schiavo case, which centers around a brain-damaged, 41-year-old Florida woman who has been kept alive by a feeding tube, Gubellini's 1986 case dealt with the question of whether to remove a feeding tube from a person who had severe and irreversible brain damage.
According to state records of the case, Paul Brophy was afflicted on March 22, 1983, by the rupture of an aneurysm located at the apex of the basilar artery. Prior to that time, Brophy had been a healthy, robust man who had been employed by the town of Easton as a firefighter and emergency medical technician.
Despite surgery on April 6, 1983, he never regained consciousness. He remained in a condition described as a "persistent vegetative state" and was unable to chew or swallow. He was kept alive by an artificial device known as a gastrostomy tube, or G-tube, through which he received nutrition and hydration.
On Feb. 6, 1985, Brophy's wife, Patricia, in her capacity as legal guardian for her husband, filed a complaint in the Probate Court for Norfolk County requesting a judgment granting her the authority to order discontinuance of all life-sustaining treatment for her husband, including artificial nutrition and hydration.
Judge David Kopelman heard the plea that day, and knowing it was the first time such a case had been brought before any court, he ordered a complete review of the issue through a trial. Since Paul Brophy had no legal representative in the matter, the judge appointed Gubellini as his lawyer, thrusting Gubellini into the spotlight.
"I was very concerned that this was the first time a case like this had been heard," Gubellini remembered. "I wanted the right decision for Paul because I knew coming down the line there would be other cases like it."
In his decision, Kopelman ruled in Gubellini's favor, setting the way for the family's appeal to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.
"I'm still the only person on the planet that's argued a right-to-die case and won," said Gubellini.
During the ordeal, Gubellini found himself in the middle of a nationwide battle between right-to-life and euthanasia proponents, who were both looking at the Brophy case as a way to advance their causes.
"Between the trial and the hearing before SJC, I was on '20/20' and drive-time morning talk shows from Pittsburgh to Chicago."
On Oct. 11, 1986, the SJC reversed the lower court ruling, and in reaching that conclusion, the judges relied on several statements made by Brophy prior to the onset of his illness.
According to court records, Brophy stated to his wife, "I don't ever want to be on a life-support system. No way do I want to live like that; that is not living." About one week prior to his illness, in discussing a local teenager who had been put on a life-support system, he said, "No way, don't ever let that happen to me, no way."
Brophy died in Emerson Hospital at the age of 49 a week after they removed his feeding tube. Gubellini said he has not spoken to the Brophy family in the years following the much-celebrated case.
He's quick to point out that although they were on different sides of the issue, he "never for a moment questioned the love they had for their husband and their father."
As for what has changed since the Brophy case, Gubellini said there seems to be a cultural shift to a more conservative view on such matters. But, as medical advances prolong life in ways never thought imaginable, it remains unclear about how best lawmakers can protect those who cannot speak for themselves against decisions that make death too easy and those that make it too agonizing and prolonged.
With scientific advances muddying the waters of where life begins and ends, Gubellini himself continues to wrestle with its complexities. And, as a teacher at Ayer High School, he faces this issue head-on in his law and contemporary social issues classes, where he continues to argue his case out of the limelight, but in front of some of his toughest jurors - his students.
(Michael Cox is a staff writer for the Wellesley Townsman)
Paul Brophy was buried with full Fire Department honors. Over a thousand firefighters attended his funeral. His wishes were carried out by his loving wife.
Local lawyer argued first feeding-tube removal case
By Michael Cox / Daily News Staff
Thursday, March 24, 2005
The last time Peter Gubellini saw a case create such a firestorm, he was standing in the middle of it.
That was almost 20 years ago, and Gubellini of Wellesley was lobbying the U.S. Supreme Court for one last chance to save a severely brain-injured man from what he still considers a gruesome death.
Now, as the battle over whether Terri Schiavo's feeding tube should be reinserted dominates the nation's headlines, Gubellini is reflecting on his own experiences as the first lawyer to argue such a case.
Over the years since his famous Brophy vs. New England Mount Sinai Hospital case, Gubellini has remained steadfast in his opinion that removing a feeding tube for the purpose of ending a life is the most inhumane way possible to allow someone to die. The notion, he said, is incompatible with the state's interest.
"Do we as a society really want to starve people to death?" he asked.
No longer a trial lawyer -- he made a career switch to teaching high school -- Gubellini has nevertheless followed the Schiavo story with great interest and has a unique respect for the complexities of the case.
Like the Schiavo case, which centers around a brain-damaged, 41-year-old Florida woman who has been kept alive by a feeding tube, Gubellini's 1986 case dealt with the question of whether to remove a feeding tube from a person who had severe and irreversible brain damage.
According to state records of the case, Paul Brophy was afflicted on March 22, 1983, by the rupture of an aneurysm located at the apex of the basilar artery. Prior to that time, Brophy had been a healthy, robust man who had been employed by the town of Easton as a firefighter and emergency medical technician.
Despite surgery on April 6, 1983, he never regained consciousness. He remained in a condition described as a "persistent vegetative state" and was unable to chew or swallow. He was kept alive by an artificial device known as a gastrostomy tube, or G-tube, through which he received nutrition and hydration.
On Feb. 6, 1985, Brophy's wife, Patricia, in her capacity as legal guardian for her husband, filed a complaint in the Probate Court for Norfolk County requesting a judgment granting her the authority to order discontinuance of all life-sustaining treatment for her husband, including artificial nutrition and hydration.
Judge David Kopelman heard the plea that day, and knowing it was the first time such a case had been brought before any court, he ordered a complete review of the issue through a trial. Since Paul Brophy had no legal representative in the matter, the judge appointed Gubellini as his lawyer, thrusting Gubellini into the spotlight.
"I was very concerned that this was the first time a case like this had been heard," Gubellini remembered. "I wanted the right decision for Paul because I knew coming down the line there would be other cases like it."
In his decision, Kopelman ruled in Gubellini's favor, setting the way for the family's appeal to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.
"I'm still the only person on the planet that's argued a right-to-die case and won," said Gubellini.
During the ordeal, Gubellini found himself in the middle of a nationwide battle between right-to-life and euthanasia proponents, who were both looking at the Brophy case as a way to advance their causes.
"Between the trial and the hearing before SJC, I was on '20/20' and drive-time morning talk shows from Pittsburgh to Chicago."
On Oct. 11, 1986, the SJC reversed the lower court ruling, and in reaching that conclusion, the judges relied on several statements made by Brophy prior to the onset of his illness.
According to court records, Brophy stated to his wife, "I don't ever want to be on a life-support system. No way do I want to live like that; that is not living." About one week prior to his illness, in discussing a local teenager who had been put on a life-support system, he said, "No way, don't ever let that happen to me, no way."
Brophy died in Emerson Hospital at the age of 49 a week after they removed his feeding tube. Gubellini said he has not spoken to the Brophy family in the years following the much-celebrated case.
He's quick to point out that although they were on different sides of the issue, he "never for a moment questioned the love they had for their husband and their father."
As for what has changed since the Brophy case, Gubellini said there seems to be a cultural shift to a more conservative view on such matters. But, as medical advances prolong life in ways never thought imaginable, it remains unclear about how best lawmakers can protect those who cannot speak for themselves against decisions that make death too easy and those that make it too agonizing and prolonged.
With scientific advances muddying the waters of where life begins and ends, Gubellini himself continues to wrestle with its complexities. And, as a teacher at Ayer High School, he faces this issue head-on in his law and contemporary social issues classes, where he continues to argue his case out of the limelight, but in front of some of his toughest jurors - his students.
(Michael Cox is a staff writer for the Wellesley Townsman)
Paul Brophy was buried with full Fire Department honors. Over a thousand firefighters attended his funeral. His wishes were carried out by his loving wife.
For those of you who think Terri is a "persistant vegetable with no emotions or thoughts", how do you explain her reactions to her parents, partial speech, lack of respirator and not being in a comatose state? Was Christopher Reeve a vegetable? He was on more life support than Terri ever has been. What if Scott Peterson lost the ability to swallow (Terri's problem)? Would we let him die? Probably not. Even the Democrats would agree that he should be "fed" so he could live out his sentence in prison until he is executed. This issue was predicted back in 1973 by Francis Schaeffer. The government made it "OK" to kill unborn children, which only paved the way to start murdering anyone who they think does not have a high enough quality of life.
This brings up another point. If a doctor and mother kill an unborn child, it's perfectly fine. But, if a perpetrator commits a crime by killing a pregnant woman, he now stands guilty of killing two people. What's the explanation for that????
I'm afraid that tis post is going to cause a lot of turmoil here. I'm sure it CAN be a mature and civil debate/discussion, but I myself am having a hard time coming to grasp with this whole situation.
This brings up another point. If a doctor and mother kill an unborn child, it's perfectly fine. But, if a perpetrator commits a crime by killing a pregnant woman, he now stands guilty of killing two people. What's the explanation for that????
I'm afraid that tis post is going to cause a lot of turmoil here. I'm sure it CAN be a mature and civil debate/discussion, but I myself am having a hard time coming to grasp with this whole situation.
Spilchy
New member
seracis said:
She lacks a cerebral coretx! You can still breathe on your own and not be comatose. She has no "human" reaction to her parents despite what you see on TV. By saying she has emotions is like arguing the sky is pink. Notice what you said and notice what I have indicated in captial letters keeping in mind what you are about to read IS LACKING IN HER BRAIN AS IN IT IS GONE!!!!!
The cerebral cortex is divided into 4 lobes:
Frontal Lobe- associated with reasoning, planning, parts of speech, movement, EMOTIONS, and problem solving
Parietal Lobe- associated with movement, orientation, RECOGNITION, perception of stimuli
Occipital Lobe- associated with visual processing
Temporal Lobe- associated with perception and recognition of auditory stimuli, memory, and SPEECH
I will no longer be posting on this topic. I don't want to form harsh attitudes towards anyone here just because we do not agree, and I know that will happen on my part. I have not been here at Autopia long and I know that if I continue down this path of posting on this topic, I will have reservations about making this my daily "check-in". Thanks for understanding.
Prometheus
Perfectionist in Rehab
The thing that is bothering me is that in the state of Florida, it's illegal to starve a dog, but it's perfectly OK to take them out back and shoot them. To my mind, this is the same kind of issue (albet no one is going to take Terri out back and shoot her). If we give dogs the same basic right to not be starved, the least we can allow is that same respect to humans.
I'm not saying that the government should step in and force someone to reinsert the feeding tube, I'm just pointing out a highly ironic thing to my mind. Let the family sort it out, and let it be. If they want to fight it in court, fine, but let it stay there, dont involve every other piddly little beaurocrat on the face of the planet. Just my opinion. Take it as you wish.
I'm not saying that the government should step in and force someone to reinsert the feeding tube, I'm just pointing out a highly ironic thing to my mind. Let the family sort it out, and let it be. If they want to fight it in court, fine, but let it stay there, dont involve every other piddly little beaurocrat on the face of the planet. Just my opinion. Take it as you wish.
Accumulator
Well-known member
Spilchy said:
Absolutely! A clearly written, unambiguous, living will with multiple copies filed with people you trust. Also discuss this topic with your healthcare provider and others who may become involved in such matters. Be explicit, don't leave anything to chance.
Even if you're a teenage Olympic athlete in perfect health, even if you live in a state that doesn't recognize living wills, if you don't have a living will (and a *regular will* as well), have it drawn up *now*.
No matter which side of this issue you're on, [stuff] happens, and this is a matter of your taking personal responsibility with regard to your wishes. If nothing else, stating your wishes can take a burden off the shoulders of others.
Scott P said:
Hi Scott. I'm sorry, but I strongly disagree! How is Terry dead? She's not. Also, you're wrong about her recovery. Didn't you hear the doctor who was voted for the noble peace prize that spent over 10 hours with her and said that she could slowly recover?
Why is everyone so eager to kill this woman? Why is her own husband so eager? Yes, I understand that she didn't have anything in writing. Why not air on the side of life until people can get things straight? Like I said in my original post, I believe her husband is not all he is cracked up to be. Why have nurses stated that when they wrote down years ago that Terry was making process on the charts the charts disappeared? Why have nurses heard that when Michael walked into the room he said when will that bit*&^ die?
Spilchy
New member
What if she had a living will that stated she wanted no feeding tube if it came down to it? That she would rather starve to death than to spend DECADES in an oblivious zombie-like state void of ANY and ALL mental capacities that the cerebral cortex provides. Would you deny her that right based on your personal values?
My grandmother died 2 months ago. We got a call at 11:00pm on a Friday. By law, they were unable to tell us of her condition until we got their in person. Basically she had stopped breathing in her sleep. Police and paramedics were rushed to the scene. The FIRST thing my father did was grab her living will which indicated absolutely no artificial means were to be used (feeding tube, breathing tube) to keep her alive. She died in her sleep 5 minutes before we made it.
Would you not allow her to die as she wished? Would you deny my family that right? Would you invade my family's privacy with your moral and religious values that we don't share or care to have stated to us?
What is happening by those who disagree with the ruling is that they are engaging in character assasination of her husband.
You know I have heard her parents are not "all they are cracked up to be." I listened to the husabnd's brother on the Today show this morning. He stated some pretty awful stuff they allegedly said about trying to get their hands on Terry's settlement money from her accident.
Nobody here or in TV land knows anything about the character of the husband or the parents. The case is not about that. It's about privacy and the rule of law. And the rule of law states that the spouse has the control and this has been upheld by EVERY court and the highest court in the land has refused to hear the case. There isn't just one judge or panel of judges who have heard this. This legal matter has been going on for years.
If you don't like it, petition your Congressman or work to get a referendum on the ballot.
But until then, leave these people alone and let the parents and husband work it out in private.
My grandmother died 2 months ago. We got a call at 11:00pm on a Friday. By law, they were unable to tell us of her condition until we got their in person. Basically she had stopped breathing in her sleep. Police and paramedics were rushed to the scene. The FIRST thing my father did was grab her living will which indicated absolutely no artificial means were to be used (feeding tube, breathing tube) to keep her alive. She died in her sleep 5 minutes before we made it.
Would you not allow her to die as she wished? Would you deny my family that right? Would you invade my family's privacy with your moral and religious values that we don't share or care to have stated to us?
What is happening by those who disagree with the ruling is that they are engaging in character assasination of her husband.
You know I have heard her parents are not "all they are cracked up to be." I listened to the husabnd's brother on the Today show this morning. He stated some pretty awful stuff they allegedly said about trying to get their hands on Terry's settlement money from her accident.
Nobody here or in TV land knows anything about the character of the husband or the parents. The case is not about that. It's about privacy and the rule of law. And the rule of law states that the spouse has the control and this has been upheld by EVERY court and the highest court in the land has refused to hear the case. There isn't just one judge or panel of judges who have heard this. This legal matter has been going on for years.
If you don't like it, petition your Congressman or work to get a referendum on the ballot.
But until then, leave these people alone and let the parents and husband work it out in private.
seracis,
Please don't stop posting on it; it's an opportunity to bridge gaps, not create them. I can like and enjoy the company of people I disagree with, even people I STRONGLY disagree with, because I take the time to listen and consider what they have to say. I might not agree with what they say, but I can understand them; and anyhow, I might not be right.
This is one of those "no easy answers" situations, or really one of those "no answers at all".
BTW, the films of her recognizing her parents are from the '90s.
Tom
Please don't stop posting on it; it's an opportunity to bridge gaps, not create them. I can like and enjoy the company of people I disagree with, even people I STRONGLY disagree with, because I take the time to listen and consider what they have to say. I might not agree with what they say, but I can understand them; and anyhow, I might not be right.
This is one of those "no easy answers" situations, or really one of those "no answers at all".
BTW, the films of her recognizing her parents are from the '90s.
Tom
DaGonz
Autopia fire/rescue.
Here's a link to the entire Shiavo case. .. it's interesting reading...
http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/timeline.htm
http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/timeline.htm
White95Max
New member
III said:
How long has she been like this? 20 years or something? How does that make her husband eager? She'd die of old age before she had slowly recovered.
I would hate to live like that. Furthermore it would hurt to see anyone I knew like that.
My grandma was in a somewhat similar state for a few weeks before she died. She had high blood pressure, diabetes, an amputated leg, and plenty of other problems. She called me a different name everytime she saw me (alzheimers) (although all the names were of someone in the family) and she even told me and the rest of her grandkids that she just wished she would die already.
We were saddened to see her go, but we all know that it was torture to live like that, and we all had to feel some joy for knowing that she didn't have to live in pain any longer.
IMO, it is in the best interest of the whole family to let Terry die. If she hasn't recovered in 20 years, how is she going to recover now?