Welcome To CK5!
Registering is free and easy! Hope to see you on the forums soon.
Score a FREE Membership sticker when you sign up for a Premium Membership and choose the recurring plan.
Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by newyorkin, Mar 17, 2005.
In your opinion, is it humane for the feeding tube to be removed?
If it was me and the doctors believed I was brain dead with no chance of recovery I'd want it removed.
What's her current state?
I'm thinking "One" here, really
It's the quality (Or lack of) life that should be the deciding factor in my honest opinion. Is there any chance of a normal life for her ??
im curious here, who is voting what? and why?
i voted that the husband should have no say. he has already moved on with his life to the point of starting at least one relationship with another woman, which resulted in 2 children. he stands to inherit a good chunk of change upon her death, so why wouldnt he encourage her doctors to remove the feeding tubes?
i live in a cave, whats going on here?
I agree with you; husband has ditched her, his opinion means nothing. Her actual family, mother and father, should decide if anyone. Since she has no advanced directive (i.e. a "DNR") it's still kind of iffy even for them.
My belief is if you set forth what your wishes are, they should be obeyed. But if you have not expressed your desire to not have heroic measures used to save your life, it has to be assumed that you want to be saved at all costs.
Although; being taken off life support and being starved to death are two entirely seperate things.
Tough situation so I won't tell them what they should do. What I would do though.......
If it were my wife, I was convinced there was zero chance of recovery, but Mom or Dad in-law wanted to continue it would be tough to tell them no. There would be a great deal of family discussion. However after a certain number of years with little result I would let her go regardless of their protests.
If it was my daughter and my son in-law wanted to pull the plug when I felt there was hope I'd fight the ruling too. Especially if I felt he was a POS that had moved on quickly to greener pastures. Also again life support would depend on her progress, I'd know when the time was right.
I have already left instructions with my wife in case this happens to me. No life support, I don't want to be a veggie or semi-coherent zombie. I wouldn't want to live with no quality of life. If my parents fought it I'd say they were selfish a-holes and to get over it. I can guarantee you my Mother would have attempted to keep me on life support until she herself had passed away. My Dad is more practical.
Depends on where your standing in the argument and what your beliefs are. That's is precisely why you need to have a will so there is no doubt.
Well, if I were the poor woman I'd want to pass on...HOWEVER...as stated, being taken off life support and being starved are totally different things.
This is a very complicated issue because the husband technically has power of attorney but it seems as though he's not interested in his "wife" anymore.
The parents are trying to keep their daughter alive and away from her "husband" whether it's right or not, we may never know.
If there were a humane way to do it, I'd be all for ending the suffering and poor quality of life. But wasting away would be a ****ty way to go. Most people deemed "veggies" aren't totally brain dead. They still experience stimuli like the rest of us, they just can't physically react to it. I'm not sure if this is the case with this woman, but it certainly could be. Truly being brain dead means the only thing keeping you going is a heart/lung machine and your brain is totally inactive.
Either way, I don't think the husband should have a say. But, I do believe that the parents should be asked to re-evaluate their decision.
the question posted, I said No the court shouldnt decide. It boils down to public opinion now, which isn't mch really. The TV channels have made this guy into an animal that just wants his wife out of the way....she has been essentially 'un' living (on life support systems for years-yes feeding tubes is a form of life support). Tuff any way you look at it....but she is not living-sorry.
This is a really screwed up case.
Legally, I think the husband has the final say. The funny part about that is that he received a few million $$$ for her care and hasn't spent half of it. Yes. he moved on with his life but many people believe he moved on before his wife was injured. If I recall correctly his first child with this other woman was born shortly after his wife was injured (maybe before )
He could have had the marriage annuled years ago ..... but then he couldn't get his hands on the $$$ for her care.
Her parents seem to be able to communicate with her and they say she is haapy to see them when they visit. They want to care for her and they don't care about the money, I say let them have their daughter back and they can decide what's best.
Is this the case in Florida? I heard a while back that the injuries she suffered to put in the coma could have been caused by abuse from the husband. Any truth to that? I thought that is why he may be pushing so hard to stop life support, because if she could recover to the point of communication, he could be implicated with attempted murder.
Isn't Fifteen Years Long Enough!!!
She has been this way for fifteen years, and her parents feel that she can be rehabilitated. Its seems that they are unwilling to face the facts and are being selfish. It shouldn't be about what the parents or husband wants, but what the person it happens to, their wishes. The husband says she didn't want to live this way.
I, unfortunatly, have had to be in family decisions about my grandparents and their wishes as they were pretty much in this state.
I agree with Z3PR that it comes down to quality of life. Fifteen years she has had a feeding tube, diapers, bed sores, no communication or interaction. 24 hours a day in a bed or they might move you to a reclined chair. Doesn't sound like life to me
Her husband seems to be a POS, so I dont think he should have a voice here. BUT BUT BUT!!! Her parents aren't doing her any favors. If I was in her shoes, I'd want death, like 10 years ago. Starving her is a little cruel though. If you cant humanely end her suffering, maybe re-think it? Lot of factors here, but if it were me, my wife would end it for me, and vice versa. My parents and I have also agreed that if any of us ended up like that, we'd take care of them, and not let them remain veggies.
Sadly there aren't other options. If you help death along, then it is assisted suicide which is against the law.
You use medecine to help make them as comfortable as possible and remove the feeding tube, its not a easy decision. As you can see, you can prolong "life" 15 years on a feeding tube.
I also don't like to see all of the husband bashing. If it was my wife's wishes, I would stick to my guns for my whole lifetime.
From an article:
Schiavo suffered brain damage in 1990 when she collapsed from heart failure. She recovered from the heart attack, but oxygen was cut off to her brain, leaving her in what doctors call a "persistent vegetative state." She is responsive to stimuli, doctors have said, but has no significant brain function and cannot feed herself
Just a bit too much morphine, over
Who is paying for the care at 200k a year she receives?
is there a value on human life.... by extraordinary means?
sounds cold but yes there is.... I dont want to pay tax dollars for a vegetable....
and I wouldnt want to be one.... give me a nice dose of morphine
That is how I would want to go if it were me, hell use haroin at that point. 10bucks says she smiles before heading to the light
I find the idea of not trying to keep a person alive troubling.
There are/have been a lot of instances of veg'd individuals being removed from life support when it's clear there's zero chance of recovery. This one appears to have a lot of contention because she may not actually be in a state that warrants it.
Apparently, Terri Schiavo is in a vegetative state *barely* by definition, if even at all. Supposedly, she's responsive, shows emotion, etc. She's not motionless and dead except for machines keeping her going, as I think the husband seems to imply.
I don't think I can accept quality of life and ability to survive independently as criteria for putting effort into keeping an individual alive. Too many severely retarded children, and handicapped people, or mentally ill people that can expect seriously crappy quality of life, but still not be simply terminated.
So this opens up some more philosophical issues (excluding spiritual issues for now).
If an individual is no longer cognizant and their body lives but their mind does not, is that individual suffering? If the individual is not suffering, is it selfish of family to want to keep the individual alive for their own pacification?
If the individual is alive in body and a fragment of their mind remains, like this woman, post-injury, is she conscious of suffering? Or does she know only what she expresses, pleasure at familiar faces, pain with physical stimuli?
If the individual is physically alive like that, does the individual have a desire to live, or indifference? If not suffering (consciously), wouldn't one expect the individual to desire to live?
I personally think the husband is awfully fishy. By the timeline, he lost interest in her long ago, and doesn't even need to be a factor in her life now.
By his action and the accounting of the million dollars she received to be used solely for medical care, he does NOT appear to be seeking her well-being, and supposedly he could have had the marriage annulled and chose to stay married, even though he's already *started a family* with another woman.
I don't really know what's in it for him, but I kinda hope the court orders him to repay the over $300k he misappropriated into legal fees for court proceedings that were not within the scope of the allowed use of the money.
Her parents were at one point barred from visitation by court order (and may still be). They have pledged to take over her care at thier expense if she's released into their care.
If I were the parent in this situation, and my child were in the state they claim she is, $hit yeah I'd want her kept alive! If I were the husband, and it was becoming this much trouble, I'd have walked away years ago. I think in this situation I'd have trouble starting life with another woman as long as my wife had a pulse, though.
Well anyway, it's a hard call from the sidelines when not too many people know more than "He said/She said" as reported in the super-fact-verifying media.
Who can know what's truth? Who can say the guy doesn't have genuine reasons and he's just being portrayed a little suspiciously? Who can tell if she's really what her parents say or not?
Separate names with a comma.