STYLETHREAD -- LET'S TALK SHOP!

ShanKel · Kenneth Cole

Schiavo's feeding tube removed!

sfclinevandy · Coach

I live in the same area of Florida where this is going on and this is HUGE news. It's always a top news story and and now protesters have been outside Michael Shiavo's house for a while on hunger strikes to unify with Terry. It's sad all the way around but I have to side with her husband. I've been to a couple lectures on Shiavo (since I live in the area and my school has sponsered several things relating to the case) but I do understand and respect her parents' arguments as well.

Andrea Julia · Coach

I TOTALLY agree with the ruling. The woman has been in a coma for 15 years! What are people protesting about? Unless it is a family member or friend I can't understand people getting so riled up that they are on a hunger strike.

I'm sure this was a hard decision for her husband as well. All things considered, this was the best choice. In her state, she could keep living for another 40 years. And who is paying for all this and why?

This kind of stuff makes me feel that everyone should have a living will that says what they want done in a situation like this. That way, everyone can be sure they are following the incapacitated's wishes. This is a difficult situation due to the way she would be dying could be considered "killing her" as opposed to "letting her die". It's not a matter of pulling a plug on someone that wouldn't be alive otherwise. She seems to be pretty healthy physically.

DC Shopper · Dooney & Bourke

it's such a sad situation and I'm angered that her case has become a political cause for the right. what right does congress or jeb bush have to determine such an intensely personal family matter? it seems like her husband is trying to follow her wishes and is not being allowed to do so. tons of people sign have do-not-resusitate clauses or express their wishes to not live as a vegetable should something happen - and these wishes are respected every day without as much controversy as this case is getting.

i think that people have a right to die. dying is not the worst thing that can happen to you. every single person on this earth has to die, and it's not always pretty - but living as a vegetable seems like a pretty harsh thing to condemn someone to. i can sympathize with her parents, but, although i don't know the details of their daughter's medical history or anything, it seems like they are just trying to hang on to their daughter for the sake of hanging on to her. it is a sad situation, but i think they should let her go. in reality, they lost their daughter a long time ago.

i do think that starvation is a terrible way to go and i understand why her parents would not want her feeding tube removed - i almost think that rather than let people die this way, there should be some kind of euthanasia available. i know that brings up all kinds of other moral issues, but how can that be any worse than letting her starve? the end result would be the same, but with much less suffering.

with all the medical advances in our times, there are more and more ways to keep people alive while not improving their quality of life, leading to situations like the Schiavos'. our life spans have been lengthened, but all it means is that we live in a prolonged state of elderliness or illness.

i think it would have been a kindness to have stopped giving this woman heroic measures when her heart stopped all those years ago, once they realized that her brain was severely damaged, rather than keep her alive in the state she is in.

-- Edited by DC Shopper at 14:59, 2005-03-21

lsubatgirl · Gucci

Its just so hard to figure out who is right in this case. I mean do we really know she told her husband she wanted to die if she was like this ever? Why did he wait all these years to finally act on it? It seems that if he really cared about her he would go ahead and divorce her and let her parents do whatever they wanted since he is already living with someone else and has kids with this other person. Why not divorce terry and marry the other woman?

But I agree that if she is a vegetable then it really isn't a good life for her and her parents probably do need to let go but the way she is going to go isn't a good one. Its just hard from both sides.

blink · Coach

I definitely think that it is time to let her go, BUT I also feel that if her family wants to try and continue to treat her, they should have some rights. Maybe I sound naive, but why can't the law say something like...as long as a member of the patients immediate family wants to continue treatment and has a willing physician on their side then the husbands right to attorney on the matter of removing her nourishment could be ignored. It is hard for me to understand Mr. Shiavo's argument that he's really fighting this thing just for Terri's sake, it seems more like a control issue, even if the medical community is on his side.

That said, this argument would never happen in my family/spouses family, we would prefer to be set free to go to God.

Drew · Gucci

I am stuck on this. In many ways I agree with LSUBatgirl. I don't understand why the husband won't divorse Terri. He has already REPLACED her. Why not let the parents do as they wish for her? If she truly is a vegetable I don't see the harm in it, and if there is a spark of life behind those eyes, then her parents are right. I just don't understand why he won't stand aside and let the parents take over.

Also, Terri's family maintains that she has communicated with them over the years. I think that is why people like Bush and his brother want to "err on the side of life." I do too.

honey · Gucci

quote:
Originally posted by: Drew
"I am stuck on this. In many ways I agree with LSUBatgirl. I don't understand why the husband won't divorse Terri. He has already REPLACED her. Why not let the parents do as they wish for her? If she truly is a vegetable I don't see the harm in it, and if there is a spark of life behind those eyes, then her parents are right. I just don't understand why he won't stand aside and let the parents take over. Also, Terri's family maintains that she has communicated with them over the years. I think that is why people like Bush and his brother want to "err on the side of life." I do too."

imo the government has no business getting involved in this, outside of determining whether it is the parents' or the spouses decision can make the decision to pull the plug. all this other business is nonsense and it really scares that me that our president and congress would be so bold as to presume they have the right to determine her fate.

what confuses me is that in the (limited) number of articles i've read on this matter, i haven't really read anything about the husband's rationale for pulling the plug aside from this being what his wife would want. while i'm not as bold as the gov. to presume that this is not the case, i would like to know why he waited so long before removing the tube. and honestly i think it's even more barbaric to keep removing and replacing the tube, then to just let her die in peace.

eta: drew in response to your question about divorce. if you look at it from the standpoint that the husband is acting on terry's wishes, then it's not just about him divorcing her and letting the parents artificially prolong her life. i think it's unfair to say that he's "replaced" her and should just step aside, b/c that statement is based on the assumption that he's the bad guy in this situation. which is not necessarily the case. you can also look at it from the (admittedly romantic) perspective that he still cares for her and wants to honor her wishes.

-- Edited by honey at 14:40, 2005-03-22

Pepper · Kenneth Cole

I do have mixed feelings about this. I would not want someone to keep me alive if I was in a vegetative state. I would hope that my family would let me go.

I also think the way they are letting her die is cruel. To let someone starve to death is just cruel - You'd think if you were to let someone go - they could do it fast instead of slowly starving someone. Why is it O.K. to pull the feeding tube out but euthanasia is illegal?

Drew · Gucci

Just kind of thinking this through... for those of you who think it's best to let Terri die, but think starvation is wrong, I have to ask why? If, indeed, Terri is in a vegetative state, then it is fair to compare her feelings to that of a vegetable, right? Well vegetation doesn't have an emotional state (or brain) so if one is brain dead, then it's not morally wrong to "starve" the person to death, is it? I mean they can't feel or are consious of what's going on.

Honey, All I know is that her husband is living with another woman with kids by this new woman. Umm, that is definately replacing Terri IMO. I just can't see why he won't let her family have the only happiness they can have. Has he considered that what Terri would want in this circumstance? Maybe Terri would have wanted this for her parents and brother; they seem to feel a real connection with Terri still.

lsubatgirl · Gucci

quote:
Originally posted by: Drew
" All I know is that her husband is living with another woman with kids by this new woman. Umm, that is definately replacing Terri IMO. I just can't see why he won't let her family have the only happiness they can have. Has he considered that what Terri would want in this circumstance? Maybe Terri would have wanted this for her parents and brother; they seem to feel a real connection with Terri still. "

That is what I think. I mean he has no real interest in her any more so what should it matter if she is dead or alive? Just a really complicated situation.

The other issue I have with the case is that she does breathe on her own. She's not on a ventilator. So to me it seems like she's still alive but just can't feed herself. (I have no understanding though of medicine and such)

honey · Gucci

quote:
Originally posted by: Drew
Honey, All I know is that her husband is living with another woman with kids by this new woman. Umm, that is definately replacing Terri IMO. I just can't see why he won't let her family have the only happiness they can have. Has he considered that what Terri would want in this circumstance? Maybe Terri would have wanted this for her parents and brother; they seem to feel a real connection with Terri still. "

maybe i'm overly romantic and/or it's simply an issue of semantics but i just don't think it's fair to say he's "replacing" her. for all intents and purposes she is dead, in the sense that he can no longer have any sort of emotional or physical relationship with her. if a widow remarries we wouldn't say he/she has replaced his/her spouse, we'd say he/she has moved on with life. imo i think it's the same thing. also i think with this issue b/c it's so gray there's this attempt by both sides to claim some sort of moral legitimacy by making the other side look bad. hence my beef with the choice of words, you replace a shirt, not a person.

again, there's not really a right or wrong answer. but i would hope that my spouse would seek to preserve my wishes and my family would respect my wishes even if they didn't agree with them. i've read at least one article that said that 2 court appointed doctors had declared her brain dead, so even though she can breathe she is just an empty shell of the person she used to be.

Mia · Kate Spade

I voted 'I Don't Know'. I support right to die initiatives but there are too many questions (did she really express her wishes to her husband? is she really a vegetable? is she capable of any consciousness at all? etc.) in this case for me to be entirely comfortable with the removal of her feeding tube.

My main concern is that she left no will and she apparently didn't express her wish not to be kept alive in such a situation to anyone but her husband. I don't think I agree with leaving it - a decision this weighty - up to one person - to one person's word.

I'd like to hear some medical opinions - are there any medical opinions stating she is anything but entirely brain dead? A friend of my sister's from highschool was in a car crash and has been in a persistant vegetative state for about 7 years now, and my sister says when she visits her, she does react. No one can know. That's why it's so difficult.

bumblebee · Dooney & Bourke

i have very mixed feelings on this and have been holding off on responding. i have been having nightmares the last few nights about babies with feeding tubes, etc.

anyway, when i first heard about it, it seemed to me that this man was her husband, she allegedly told him that she wouldn't want to be kept alive by artificial means, and therefore it was cruel and unneccessary of her parents to insist that he do so. BUT, then i was listening to NPR the other night and they had medical experts on, talking about what happens when a person is in a vegetative state, and that muddies the waters quite a bit. apparently when the parents come to visit her in the hospital, her eyes light up, she makes noises and they can tell that she recognizes them and that there is something going on inside her head.

but, another expert was asked about the possibility that she would ever come out of this state, and he said that there basically was no possibility of that. does anyone know anything about that? there is no way that she would ever be able to function at a higher level again? so where she is now is the best it's going to get? if so, then that seems to me to be maybe kinder to let her die.

then again, the commentators on NPR brought up something else that i hadn't thought of before--what of the husband's state of mind? he might not be in the best position to be making serious decisions like this, after years of the financial drain of terri's care and his own (speculated) depression and frustration. i don't know who is paying the medical bills, and maybe it is the parents, but it has to be awfully expensive to keep someone alive on machines in a hospital like that (i know that it's vulgar to talk about like that, but it's a reality that they brought up that i hadn't considered).

so anyway, i don't feel that it was appropriate for congress to get involved (and even less appropriate for some people to politicize it), but i am really unsure of what is the best thing to happen--it's such a tough situation.

manhattanmonkey · Kenneth Cole

I have to side with the parents on this one. I'm not fully aware of all the details of this situation but I can't imagine watching a family member starve.

Yes, she's in a coma but if she can breathe, she needs to be fed. Can you imagine sitting in the hospital room knowing that she's just drifting away by starvation?

I agree with Drew on much of what she posted...and another thing about her husband. Is any insurance money involved? Does he get paid off for her life once she dies? And what if Terri would happen to come back at some point and finds her husband didn't stand by her, but left after 8 years or so and started a family?

In the end, I hope the best choice is made and all things are considered and options are thought through.

DC Shopper · Dooney & Bourke

Well the term "vegetative" doesn't mean a person in that state is literally a vegetable. They might not have the brain functions of a normal person, but I'm pretty sure they can still feel pain, to answer Drew's question. I'm no doctor, but I think that someone with brain damage does not literally turn into a vegetable or inanimate object, they can still have physical sensations and still feel pain. That is why I think that starvation is still a sucky way to go regardless of your mental or physical state.

The whole situation is just very sad from all sides, and obviously we can only speculate as to each side's rational for wanting the tube removed or not, or whether Terry really responds to her parents' presence, etc. It's a really sad story and I hope it never happens to me or anyone I love.

-- Edited by DC Shopper at 22:19, 2005-03-22

honey · Gucci

every news source says different things, but according to cnn's timeline (if you click on this link http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/22/schiavo/index.html under the header related links there is a time line) a $700,000 trust was created after they won a malpractice suit to take care of the medical expenses. taken at face value it doesn't appear as though it's a money issue, though i'm assuming that they probably had additional insurance (i.e. via an employer or other private form of insurance). however i don't know that much about the actual cost so it's possible that they could have run out of money a while ago.

also this is the definition cnn used...

"Michael Schiavo insists that his wife would never want to continue to live in her condition -- what Florida courts have deemed a persistent vegetative state.

People in such a condition cannot think, speak or respond to commands and are not aware of their surroundings."

and some other stuff i read indicates that while the body still functions (you breathe, you belch, etc) you're not aware of those functions. i wonder if she feels pain?

RyanJ · Coach

This is just a radom thought that I was having- okay maybe not random, but just a thought-

I find it odd that NOW has been silent. I have been paying really close attention to the whole thing and have been reading, watching and listening to so much about this and I have not heard the group mentioned at all.

It seems like something they would be all over.