Obviously I need to clear things up from my other post. I admit I was vague (I was short on time) and I apologize.
Regarding the comment: "Years from now, if some - heavens forbid - should happen to your husband and he had previously asked you to not allow him to live in pain or breathing by machine, but his parents would not allow you to take him off the machine, what do you think you would feel then?"
People need to discuss options for situations such as those. Everything needs to be 100% crystal clear. The person in question should have a living will stating what should happen if he or she cannot decide for him- or herself. For example, let's say my husband sustained injuries in an accident that left him brain-dead. Hopefully he and I would have discussed what he wanted, and hopefully he would have had it written in a living will. That’s the important thing here – options need to be discussed BEFORE something serious happens. If my husband did not want to be on life support, I would make the decision to take him off of it. Also, I mentioned something about mutual agreement between spouse and family members; maybe not a mutual agreement, but there has to be an understanding among everyone about what the person in question wanted. If a living will does not exist, then I suppose the decision is up to the spouse (even though I didn’t like the decision of Terry Schiavo’s husband, who, to me, wasn’t a very good spouse). The euthanasia that I personally am against is administering, for example, a lethal injection into someone with a terminal illness. Dr. Kevorkian, anyone? And yes, a “patient” of his may have pushed the button, but he told them it was the “right” decision. If a person is of sound mind and decides, “I want to die,” are they really of sound mind? Who actually wants to die if they still have time left on Earth? (Yes, obviously people who kill themselves, but why? There is no situation that a person can't escape - they only think they can't.) “Now, if someone with ALS (or a similar disease) said, ‘Kill me, please, I want to die,’ should they be killed? No. It's assisted suicide, end of story.”
^This is from my first euthanasia post.
Killing a person by any means is still murder, even if they ask you to. If someone asked you to steal them some medicine, it’s still stealing.
If a person WANTS to be taken off life support, then that is totally acceptable. However, if a person wants a doctor to administer a lethal injection, it’s murder and is wrong.
Life support simply delays death. In most cases, you’re not going to get better if you’re on life support. Killing someone who can live without life support is hastening death, and it’s wrong.
Death comes for us all. Why beckon it?
ALS is a terrible disease. Ir robs the body of its functions while leaving the mind in tat. Are you saying that you would want to live without the use of your limbs, blind, deaf, dumb, unfeeling, but with the ability to think. I wouldn't.
I own my life. It is my life to live or, should I so choose, not to live. The arguments against a persons right to die are emotionally based or religiously based. Neither of these should have a bearing on the law.
Before commenting on the Schiavo case again.
Start here: http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html
The husband never made the decision on her feeding tube.
He petitioned the court to do so.
Once the court had accepted that petition, it was out of his hands, apart from testifying as to what her wishes were in her situation.
"He petitioned the court to do so."
He got the ball rolling.
...that removing the feeding tube was consistent with Mrs. Schiavo's wishes. It is irresponsible of you to suggest hat Mr. Schiavo "wasn't a good spouse" for choosing to respect his wife's wishes.
Mrs. Schiavo's Guardian ad Litem (an lawyer appointed by the Court to represent Mrs. Schiavo's interests independantly from the other parties to her case) said in his official report...
...that the trier of fact and the evidence that served as the basis for the decisions regarding Theresa Schiavo were firmly grounded within Florida statutory and case law, which clearly and unequivocally provide for the removal of artificial nutrition in cases of persistent vegetative states, where there is no advance directive, through substituted/proxy judgment of the guardian and/or the court as guardian, and with the use of evidence regarding the medical condition and the intent of the parties that was deemed, by the trier of fact to be clear and convincing.
...and...
Proceedings concluded that there was no basis for the removal of Machael as Guardian. Further, it was determined that he had been very aggressive and attentive in his care of Theresa. His demanding concern for her well being and meticulous care by the nursing home earned him the characterization by the administrator as "a nursing home nightmare." It is noteable that through more than thirteen years after Theresa's collapse, she never had a bedsore.
http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/schiavo/1203galrpt.pd...
Mr. Schiavo underwent a very concerted attempt at character assassination in the press, originated by Mrs. Schiavo's estranged family members. Their criticisms and charges were heard and examined by the Court on numerous occasions, and without exception were ruled to be without any meaningful basis.
The simple fact is that Mrs. Schiavo's wishes and the validity of her husband's decisions in her name were determined by a far more rigorous than usual process. Four denials of certiorari from the Supreme Court of the United States should be enough to convince anyone that the case was thoroughly examined and adjudicated. The fact of Mrs. Schiavo's decision in this matter remained res judica from the very first trial, and was unchallenged from that point onwards, even by her estranged parents.
This case was all about a patient's right to make their own decisions about their health-care, and just because you don't like the decision that Mrs. Schiavo made doesn't give you the right to usurp that opinion with your own.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
"This case was all about a patient's right to make their own decisions about their health-care, and just because you don't like the decision that Mrs. Schiavo made doesn't give you the right to usurp that opinion with your own."
Wait, the decision Mrs. Schiavo made? When did she make the decision to be dehydrated to death?
From a letter written by Mrs. Schiavo's brother:
"The jury agreed and close to $800,000 net was earmarked for Terri's lifelong therapy and rehabilitation. Sadly, as soon as the money was in the bank, Mr. Schiavo had a change of heart and began refusing my sister treatment. That is what caused the rift between Mr. Schiavo and my family. And it was just a few months subsequent to this breach that he effectively abandoned my sister by committing to another woman and eventually having children by her. Medical documents will verify that none of the award money was used for Terri's rehabilitation as he promised; instead more than $600,000 of this money was paid to Mr. Schiavo's attorney in his pursuit to end my sister's life. This all can be validated in court records."
The court decided that it was not Mrs. Shaivo's choice to stay on life support when she was a vegetable. This based on testimony of both parties. So yeah, it was HER decision.
~C
Read the news
Nominate a featured blogger!
it is also true that the Court found the claims of Mrs. Schiavo's estranged family that Michael Schiavo had exhibited a "change of heart," and that the charges that he had misused the funds designated for her care were false. The simple fact is that a lot of crap is circulated around the internet--often at the hands of people who are more interested in their personal agendas than in the truth of what acutally happened to Mrs. Schiavo--that amounts to little more than intentionally obtuse opinions. If this had been a case where there was a single, questionable decision from a radical judge, I might be willing to entertain this kind of speculation, but the fact is that this case was rigorously tried, and at every level (from the original Florida jurisdiction all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States on four sepearate occasions), these charges were repudiadted by the Court as inaccurate and untrue.
It takes a very special kind of desperate ignorance to continue to cling in this manner to ideas that have been proved to be false.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
starting with the above link, rather than depending on press releases from one side of the litigation.
The rift occured over the issue of removing the feeding tube, not over rehabilitation.
As the report of the final guardian ad litem notes, the Schindler family stated that even did they know her wishes, beyond a doubt, they would never remove the feeding tube (i.e., even had written, advance directive existed, they would have ignored it were they guardian)
It is never a good idea to admit in sworn testimony to a court determining guardianship that you would follow your wishes instead of those of the ward.
As to the girlfriend, the parents freely admit they actively encouraged that in hopes he would relinquish guardianship (obviously, that tactic backfired). It appears from his statements on the matter Bobby Schindler was _not_ in favor of that particular tactic.
Remember, from his public comments he still believes this guy could have cured her:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Hammesfahr
In the affidavits filed, there were other practitioners who wanted to put her in a pressurized oxygen tank, charging several hundred dollars for each session ("experimental" is the kindest way to describe those treatments)
It's unfortunate no one was willing to tell the Schindlers that there are plenty of physicians out there more than willing to exploit a family's grief for their own personal gain.