The Schiavo parents have lost their latest appeal to force doctors to continue feeding their daughter.

She will now be starved of nourishment and is expected to die within a few days.

Now that this has gone in the husbands favour, do you think there could be a more humane way of carrying this out?

Also, should the parents be given more right of say on this issue. They did after all bring her into this world, but it's always the next of kin who has the greatest say in such issues and that's the husband.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4382073.stm

This is so sad, whatever the rights and wrongs of this case, I can't believe stopping food and water is a humane way to in effect "kill" someone, even if a degree of "brain dead condition" exists, feeling thirst at least must be experienced by the person.
I can't help thinking, that if all quality of life has expired, and that the papient would really be better off "not here" then a humain fast injection would be better.

Originally posted by little malc
This is so sad, whatever the rights and wrongs of this case, I can't believe stopping food and water is a humane way to in effect "kill" someone, even if a degree of "brain dead condition" exists, feeling thirst at least must be experienced by the person.
I can't help thinking, that if all quality of life has expired, and that the papient would really be better off "not here" then a humain fast injection would be better.

yeh but without a functioning brain she aint gunna know shes feeling thirsty - this case is yet another example of how fundermentalist christian 'sanctity of life' bull**** is dominat in american culture. they place people who are brain dead and /or fetus's over what is best for the people alive now. Thats why you get these oddballs who kill doctors who perform abortions. Killing in the name of life!! She should have been allowed to die with dignity years ago- there is only one good thing she will have no recollection of the years of suffering she has been though - the same cant be said for the carers who are around her - i reckon with all the money spent on years of legal wrangling and the medical cost of keeping somones body alive they could have built a small hospital to help people who have a chance

It makes me really angry reading stories like this; if this woman was a dog or a cat, she would have been humanely euthanised years ago. It's so sad that we can't show the same compassion to our own species!

K x

This should not have even gone to court - it is the parent's right to say yes or no, not the hospitals. It is a sad state of affairs when it has to end up like that. I don't know the ins and out of the case - the parents must be going through hell

I can understand the feelings of the parents concerned, a child is very precious. To let a human being die of thirst and starvation is surely a cruel and insensitive way. An injection to gently end her suffering must surely be a better alternative.

Originally posted by dollypeg
I can understand the feelings of the parents concerned, a child is very precious. To let a human being die of thirst and starvation is surely a cruel and insensitive way. An injection to gently end her suffering must surely be a better alternative.

it makes no difference - use a mallet to end her life if you want- she is dead already! no brain = no feelings - get it

The whole sorry affair I think is disgusting.

Her husband is trying basically to bump her off- quick and simple as that.. due to the fact that he will inherit a large sum of cash and also is already shacked up with a new partner and has 2 new kids to her.. does the dying woman even know about this, I mean, she has been ill since 1990??

****n sick ******* to do that to your sick wife!

What must be going through her mind right now- knowing that she has been given her last rites and they are practically killing her off slowly but surely.. she is not completely brain dead by all accounts so who is to say if she cant know whats happening to her.

I agree with her parents.. give the woman some right when she dies-- put the food/water back in please before its too late although if the last rites rumours are correct- its already gone past that stage.

I have been following this case and agree with Angelus. From a legal viewpoint, the wishes of the spouse take priority over the wishes of the parents. But in this case, the spouse's motives are suspect to say the least. Since his wife's illness, he has formed a relationship with another woman and has two children by her. He has also received a substantial compensation payment for his wife's illness. He says they had a conversation prior to her illness in which she said she would not wish to be kept alive in she were in a PVS - but no one else was present and she left no living will.

The prognosis for Terri is obviously not good - but in this case I think the wishes of the loving parents should take priority over a husband who, by many accounts (including some nurses who treated terri) sounds like a nasty piece of work.

Originally posted by Moonfire
This should not have even gone to court - it is the parent's right to say yes or no

I don't agree, parents don't have a "right" to decide their childrens lives or deaths.

I wouldn't want my parents deciding my fate, because I know what they would do, they would keep me alive as long as possible, regardless of if I had any quality of life or if wanted to die or not.

I would trust my boyfriend to make the right decision as he knows what I want and would (hopefully) do what I want not what he wants, however they way things are he would be last person consulted.

You are missing the point here Nick - in this case the husband has a personal interest in wanting his wife dead. Conversely, parental love is the most selfless of all loves (if there is such a thing). These are of course difficult decsions to make, but I am sure if you had been following this case, it would at least cause you to question the husband's motives.

I personally would want to be dead if I were in a PVS, my parents keeping me alive would not be a an act of "selfless love" as the only people it would be making happy would be them.

Perhaps (we don't know) they did discuss this and she did tell him she wanted to die, in which case he is acting in her best intrest and her parents arn't.

The fact that he will get her insurance money when she dies is not unusual, almost everyone is insured these days and someone will get the money when they die.

legalising euthanasia would be a huge step further in america than allowing someone to die through non intervention. It's not going to happen anytime in the forseable future.

I personally think that the courts have made the right decision.

They have just announced that she has died.. god rest her soul.

Washington Post article here. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15423-2005Mar31.html)

It took 13 days for her to starve to death, thats awfull.

Now they are arguing over her remains - the husband wants her cremated and the parents want her buried.

The more i discover about this case the more I think the husband has behaved abominably.

Every case of this kind has to be judged on its merits, not on an aboslute and inflexible rule.

Originally posted by LordChaverly
Now they are arguing over her remains - the husband wants her cremated and the parents want her buried.

The more i discover about this case the more I think the husband has behaved abominably.

Every case of this kind has to be judged on its merits, not on an aboslute and inflexible rule.

the law doesn't do merits. It does rules. If judges could make exceptions when they felt like it then there may as well be no laws written down.

Of course the law considers merits. The complexities of human life are such that no set of rules however elaborate can provide easy answers to every circumstance. This is why we have judges in the first place.

Originally posted by LordChaverly
Of course the law considers merits. The complexities of human life are such that no set of rules however elaborate can provide easy answers to every circumstance. This is why we have judges in the first place.

judges interpret the law, they don't decide when and how to break it.

If the law says that the next of kin is the partner then that's it. No room for maneuver, the husband is the next of kin. And if it says that the husband makes the decision in that situation, then no amount of court action from parents can or should change that.

In some cases the law is worded such that it's open to interpretation (this is mostly down to badly written legislation) in other cases the law is not ambigous and no leway is possible.

Are people who are in a persistent vegetative state capable of recovery? This poor woman had been like this for 15 years or so, and remained 'alive' only by artificial means. Medical science can now prolong 'life' - but where is the dignity in a life that is being artificially preserved? It was humane to remove the feeding tubes, and to finally allow her to die with dignity.

Originally posted by Cyclone
judges interpret the law, they don't decide when and how to break it.

If the law says that the next of kin is the partner then that's it. No room for maneuver, the husband is the next of kin. And if it says that the husband makes the decision in that situation, then no amount of court action from parents can or should change that.

In some cases the law is worded such that it's open to interpretation (this is mostly down to badly written legislation) in other cases the law is not ambigous and no leway is possible.

There is such a thing as case law - call it judge made law or whatever, but it exists, both in the UK and US judicial systems. This is not breaking a law, but interpreting it, if the judge believes that the case falls within his or her jurisdiction.

Well its over.

And I hope her 'upset' husband is happy that he managed to kill of his 'loving' wife - I hope he can live with the shame of what he has managed to do.

He should be ****n ashamed of himself - but I bet he wont be with all that cash and his new bint on his arm.

People in this world never fail to disgust me sometimes.

Michael Schiavo should not have put his life on hold waiting for his wife to recover. He has a right to have a relationship and carry on living. What has just died is not his wife but merely the vessel his wife used to occupy. I hope any financial gain he merits from his wifes bodies passing goes to secure his future. It was obvious to anyone with an ounce of intellect that Terri Schiavo would have remained in that state without any chance of recovery.

Edit. That said I have no idea what this must be like for the parents of Terri.....I think accepting the finality of it all must be truly horrific.

Originally posted by AJ sheffield
Michael Schiavo should not have put his life on hold waiting for his wife to recover. He has a right to have a relationship and carry on living. What has just died is not his wife but merely the vessel his wife used to occupy. I hope any financial gain he merits from his wifes bodies passing goes to secure his future. It was obvious to anyone with an ounce of intellect that Terri Schiavo would have remained in that state without any chance of recovery.

Well put AJ sheffield.

Originally posted by ANGELUS
Well its over.

And I hope her 'upset' husband is happy that he managed to kill of his 'loving' wife - I hope he can live with the shame of what he has managed to do.

He should be ****n ashamed of himself - but I bet he wont be with all that cash and his new bint on his arm.

People in this world never fail to disgust me sometimes.

You should be ashamed of yourself. I can't be bothered argueing my viewpoint on yet another forum, and going through the same arguements, but I'm going to humour you. What exactly are your reasons behind your opinions?

Because it's been proven beyond doubt that she's dead, she can NEVER recover, it's been medically proven, are you disputing the doctors, and if so what background do you have to say you know better than an MD, and have you ever met her to diagnose her personally?

Originally posted by Hook
You should be ashamed of yourself. I can't be bothered argueing my viewpoint on yet another forum, and going through the same arguements, but I'm going to humour you. What exactly are your reasons behind your opinions?

Because it's been proven beyond doubt that she's dead, she can NEVER recover, it's been medically proven, are you disputing the doctors, and if so what background do you have to say you know better than an MD, and have you ever met her to diagnose her personally?

It wasn't proven beyond doubt that she was dead. She was NOT brain dead - if this was the case she would have been on a life support machine which could have been switched off and she would have died quickly and peacefully. She was deemed to be in a 'persistent vegetative state'. There were arguments between doctors as to whether her movements were reactions to her environment or merely reflexes. Some form of drug induced euthanasia would have been far kinder than slowly starving her to death over 13 days.

Originally posted by Twiglet
It wasn't proven beyond doubt that she was dead. She was NOT brain dead - if this was the case she would have been on a life support machine which could have been switched off and she would have died quickly and peacefully. She was deemed to be in a 'persistent vegetative state'. There were arguments between doctors as to whether her movements were reactions to her environment or merely reflexes. Some form of drug induced euthanasia would have been far kinder than slowly starving her to death over 13 days.

She is brain dead, if I get the chance in between packing and leaving I'll dig the links up. There's only a tiny area of her brain that is responding to stimulation.

She is on a life support machine, her life is being supported by a machine that provides the food, if you take away that machine she dies, that's what happened.

This isn't a debate about Euthansia, and maybe it should be, but the debate wasn't about Euthansia, it was about keeping a woman alive who didn't want to be alive that point.

Originally posted by Twiglet
It wasn't proven beyond doubt that she was dead. She was NOT brain dead - if this was the case she would have been on a life support machine which could have been switched off and she would have died quickly and peacefully. She was deemed to be in a 'persistent vegetative state'. There were arguments between doctors as to whether her movements were reactions to her environment or merely reflexes. Some form of drug induced euthanasia would have been far kinder than slowly starving her to death over 13 days.
Admittedly Twiglet, death by witholding food does seem like a very primitive and protracted form of dispatch.

Originally posted by Hook
She is brain dead, if I get the chance in between packing and leaving I'll dig the links up. There's only a tiny area of her brain that is responding to stimulation.

She is on a life support machine, her life is being supported by a machine that provides the food, if you take away that machine she dies, that's what happened.

This isn't a debate about Euthansia, and maybe it should be, but the debate wasn't about Euthansia, it was about keeping a woman alive who didn't want to be alive that point.

From the BBC: 'According to her doctors, 41-year-old Mrs Schiavo was in a "persistent vegetative state" (PVS) - with severe brain damage but not in a coma - for some 15 years.

People in PVS have a normal heartbeat and can breathe independently, but their awareness of their surroundings is highly debatable.

Because of this uncertainty PVS lies in a legal grey area - unlike brain stem death or the heart stopping which clearly mark the time of death'

A life support machine breathes for the patient and blood pressure is maintained, keeping the patient alive. An artificial feeding tube does not constitute a life support machine. If she was brain dead she would not be able to continue breathing for herself without the assistance of a ventilator.

The argument in this case was whether or not she was actually in a persistant vegetative state ot whether she had a higher level of consciousness. She was never considered to be brain dead. She was not even considered to be in a coma.

Originally posted by Hook
You should be ashamed of yourself. I can't be bothered argueing my viewpoint on yet another forum, and going through the same arguements, but I'm going to humour you. What exactly are your reasons behind your opinions?

Because it's been proven beyond doubt that she's dead, she can NEVER recover, it's been medically proven, are you disputing the doctors, and if so what background do you have to say you know better than an MD, and have you ever met her to diagnose her personally?

Whoa whoa whoa there! WTF!!

I should be ashamed of myself- Im not the one shagging around while my wife is dying due to my arrogance to want to pull out her feeding tube to kill her off basically. and I should be ashamed of myself?? **** you

Because it's been proven beyond doubt that she's dead, she can NEVER recover
If she can recover from being dead - she's either a good actress or your a bit thick = go figure. RIP Mrs Schiavo

I dont know more than doctors- Mrs Schiavo was NOT brain dead- whoever said that she was?

Of the footage I saw she seemed to have some movement and I thought she was breathing and her haert was beating independently.

It's something that pains me greatly that with all the technology in the world we don't seem to have a quick and easy 'gizmo' that we can use to attempt to determine whether there is any 'conciousness' inside a mind that is we consider to be in PVS.

We've managed to do the usual thing with technology; come up with a mechanical approach to kepeing someone alive whilst being 20 or 30 years behind in the ethical and moral wisdom needed to wisely use the technology.

I've always said that the day I have a few hundred grand to spare I'd pay for research in to techniques to allow us to get the definitive answer as to whether mum or dad or little Johnny is still alive in the broken body. If anyone on the forum has the money....I've got a few ideas!

Joe

Originally posted by Twiglet
It wasn't proven beyond doubt that she was dead. She was NOT brain dead - if this was the case she would have been on a life support machine which could have been switched off and she would have died quickly and peacefully. She was deemed to be in a 'persistent vegetative state'. There were arguments between doctors as to whether her movements were reactions to her environment or merely reflexes. Some form of drug induced euthanasia would have been far kinder than slowly starving her to death over 13 days.

Amen Twiglet, amen.

The problem at the root of this whole mess was that NO ONE knew for sure what Ms. Schiavo would have wanted for herself. Her husband said she would have wanted to die. Her parents said she would have wanted to live.

Ordinarily, in such a case, I would say that the spouse should have the final word. One of the main purposes of marriage is to give you someone who will stick with you and help you when you need it. Michael Schiavo took a vow when he married Teri...in sickness and in health, and he can't have it both ways. Either he's her husband or he's not. To my way of thinking, if he's off living another life, (including having children) with another woman, then he's NOT her husband, and he should bow out and let her parents decide for her.

It looks really bad, not to mention just reeking of hypocrisy that Michael Schiavo still wants to have the final say over whether Teri lives or dies when he stopped being her husband a long time ago.

Also, she did NOT need the feeding tube. The husband insisted on the insertion of the tube. She could swallow liquids. Why else would they forbid her visitors (even going so far as to search them before they entered her room) from giving her water or ice chips, or ANYTHING by mouth?

How horrible that this innocent woman was allowed to slowly die of thirst over the course of thirteen agonizing days. We are not permitted to do to a dog...or a death row inmate, what they did to this woman. No one knows for sure what she would have wanted, and if no one knew for sure, then NO ONE had the right to take Teri Schiavo's life away.

:( Sierra

P.S. Good idea Joe.

Well said Sierra. From a legal viewpoint, he was still Terri's husband - in any other way he was not. And yet right up until her last minutes he had a legal right to decide who was to be with her at the end. He exercised it by denying the parents the right to be with their own daughter.

Hello Lord Chaverly - Lord Snooty here. How large is your stately home? Mine is enormous.

It is sad news, that Terri Schiavo passed away, yesterday, in one sense, but, in another, it is probably a release for her, an end to fiteen years of being in an alleged PVS.

It pained me, terribly, to see the footage of this woman on tv, because my own mother was in the same sort of condition as Mrs Schiavo, for two-and-a-half years, after suffering a brain haemmorhage, from an aneyurism, at the age of just thirty eight. Watching her, was just like seeing my mother, all over again.

My mother died just five days shy of her 41st birthday.

Watching her, in that hospital bed, in that condition was sheer torture.

I am thankful that, though that time seemed never to end, that it was as short as it was. I can't imagine going through fifteen years of watching a loved one slowly die.

I have been so torn, about this case, because I can see both sides of the argument. I agree with the peole who say "save her life!" , because I do believe that "whilstever there is life, there's hope".

On the other and, having seen my mother in the same sort of condition, I would want the end to come swiftly, too....

It is one of those "caught between a rock and a hard place" dilemmas. you are damned if you do, and you are damned if you don't!"

I also agree with sierra and lord chaverly. the hisband was so griefstricken, that he had gone out and started a relationship with another woman, and had children by her, whilst he was still Terri's husband.

The very least he could have done, if he was so bothered about Terri, was divorce her, and let her parents be the "next of kin.".

Either he was Terri's husband, or he was the partner of the otherwoman he was "shacked up with", and had a family by.
I would say he was trying to have his cake, and eat it, IMHO. He had the best of both worlds. some people I have heard, have been arguing that it was the settlement money that he had his eyes on.

and Joe! please! hurry and bring that idea into production, and people! for what it's worth, get yourselves a living will, or "advance directive", and make your wishes known, to the medical profession, and to your loved ones.

PT

Good post Plain Talker.

I agree totally about the position of the 'husband'. I think his pattern of conduct in refusing the parents the right to be at her bedside in her final minutes was typical of his callous behaviour in the years since he received the compensation settlement (which amounted to about $1 million). Now he is insisting that Terri be cremated, against her parents' wishes for a burial. Also, under Florida law, apparently he can refuse anyone (including the parents) the opportunity to see the autopsy reports.

The case has often been characterised as polarising opinion between the religious right (life is sacred at all costs) and the secularists (we have a moral right to choose or reject life). But its by no means as clear cut as that. My own belief that the parents had rights and that the case that Terri was in a PSV was by no means proven had nothing to do with religion.