Advertisements
Advertisements
Lighting a candle for Michael and Terri Schiavo. It is a tragic situation and no person deserves to be kept alive against their wishes or have the goverment interfere in their lives like this.
Advertisements
I am praying as well. With all the media, this must be just horrid, getting through their feelings and finding some peace. My mom and I talked about Terri Schiavo today. My mom was confused by the whole thing, me too, not sure who was right. I told her, "We will never know who is right. I know one thing. Terri Schiavo, her parents and her husband taught the world how important it is to have your wishes in writing, notarized, and in your current medical files, as well as a copy at home. Her parents believe they are right. Her husband believes he is right. We just won't know, because nobody else knew what Terri wanted, because it was not written on paper. So we have all learned that we need to legally document this, to save the people we love from agonizing over these decisions, wondering if what they choose is really what we want." (Loosely quoted). I think it was important that both her parents and her husband were so strong in their convictions. As difficult as it must have been, and still is, for all of them, it brought the issue to the forefront, and taught us all something really critical.
A candle for Terri, for both families and all of their friends.
I wish everyone peace who's heart is tied to this.
I just wanted to respond to a comment by someone that found the discussion of euthanasia ideology as it related to the Nazi regime "insulting."
I was NOT trying to equate Terri's situation to the Nazis. I don't feel that their ideas apply, as I do not believe that she was in PVS. I have been by the bedside of people in PVS--they are rarely awake and certainly don't eat, like Terri (it tooks a seperate court order to dissallow spoon feeding). I have even heard from others that have come out of PVS and comatose states that report hearing their surroundings, thinking, praying, and attempting to communicate through blinking and facial expressions (however these responses were ignored by staff that were convinced that their brain didn't function).
As for the posts about the Nazi ideology, I was attempting to defend another poster that I felt was being unfairly attacked. She had a valid point.
The viewpoint that was being advanced by SOME people (as I pointed out before, this does not include Michael) is that she should die--regardless of her wishes, because she has a "lesser quality life" than able bodied people. I even included an article that quoted a current bioethicist that unappologetically supports the idea of classifying certain segments of people as non-persons. This is the idea that I was trying to explain as being the concern.
This idea is what justified the initial killings by the Nazis. In the beginning, their goal was not about "selective breeding," it started with this non-persons idea--which then extended to other groups. I know that most people think about what the movement became and do not realize how small, and innoccent that it seemed at first, but the historical facts hold true.
Whether we like to think about it or not, there are groups that are actively lobbying government officials for this idea. It is a scary thought, but a very real danger. We have to, as American citizens, try to help our representatives formulate some way that will allow our wishes to be honored, without opening up ourselves to the same type of fate. Honestly, I'm not sure how to do that because it has failed in every other country. Holland said that they were allowing euthanasia so that they could monitor it, but now have a lot of able minded people being put to death, against their wishes, by doctors that feel they will be better off. How to we avoid this? I don't know...but I think that it is something that we need to figure out.
Thank you to all of those that addressed this matter respectfully, without name calling and attacks. I pray that the survivors of Terri will find peace and healing. However, I must report that the slippery slope is revealing itself much faster than many expected. Below is an article from the Lone Star Times--a publication that I am not familiar with, but the story can be found elsewhere.
Thursday, April 7, 2005
Here we go againŅ.
by Ree-C Murphey | [url="http://lonestartimes.com/index.php?p=497"]04/07/2005 7:39 pm[/url]
The first case is always the hardest. But then, it becomes easier.
A lot of people were were mortified about the dehydration death of Terri Schiavo. We all thought it would be a while before a similar situation would arise.
Well, think again.
[url="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43688"]Its happening RIGHT NOW in Georgia[/url], except in a more egregious way. Mae Magouirk, an 81-year old grandmother, is not terminally ill, comatose or in a vegetative state, but she is being starved to death in a hospice. Another case of not having a "living will"? NO, wrong again. She has a living will that specifies that she not be denied food or water unless she were in a coma or vegetative state.
Mrs. Magouirk was admitted to the hospital with an aortic dissection, which was contained. Her granddaughter, Beth Gaddy, asked that she be placed in hospice without hydration or food. Gaddy was quoted as saying, "Grandmama is old and I think it is time she went home to Jesus."
Gaddy, claimed to have a medical power of attorney, but only had a financial power of attorney. Once the hospice became aware of the situation, it prepared to have the feeding tube inserted. But before they could have Magouirk transported to a hospital, Gaddy obtained emergency gardianship over her grandmother from Probate Court Judge Donald W. Boyd.
There are closer living relatives, two siblings, that want to take care of Magouirk, but Gaddy will not consent.
If you thought a medical power of attorney would protect you, it seems that it is not worth the paper itҒs written on in some Probate Courts. It looks like low grade euthanasia via denial of food and water to non-terminal patients, regardless of wishes, is becoming "normal".
Advertisements
Apparently, the granddaughter thinks that she is doing grandma a favor. In another article she was quoted as saying, "She has gluacoma and now this heart problem, who would want to live with disabilities like that?"
I don't understand why the hospice would even accept her, since her doctors (with no exeption, so far) say that the aortic dissection is contained and, once she recovers from the surgery, she should be able to resume her normal life.
She has been without nourishment/hydration since March 28.
NDN, I read the Georgia article that you have as a link, and this is very scary. And this granddaughter is an elementary school teacher. The article says her phone is turned off. I'm not surprised. And the article said that this situation is not uncommon. Very very frightening. Thank you for bringing this here, as I thought the Terry Shaivo case was an isolated incident. This grandmother needs a court appointed guardian right now.
I read in a couple of other articles that a judge has apointed the granddaughter temporary guardianship--with no announcement about the date of the hearing. This ruling was made against the protests of the rest of the family. Apparently she is the only one that believes that this is OK. Mae's nephew has even offered to buy a bigger house so that he will have an extra room and can live with him during her recooperation...but the gd won't hear of it.
This case is not uncommon. This has been going on for a long time, and was a major catalyst behind many of the protests of Terri's treatment.
As much as cases like this are a person tragedy for the families, they are a tragedy for our society. We are not talking about end of life issues... Mae is well, she has a positive prognosis for recovery from her surgery and is almost blind from glaucoma. Apparently, disability is a crime now.
Advertisements
A report dated April 9 says that Mae Magouirk has been airlifted to a hospital where she will be treated. She was without food/hydration for 10 days. Her care will now be determined by 3 cardiologists, instead of her granddaughter. The family credits the breakthough to the media coverage and subsequent outcry.
Mae is in my prayers. Ten days without hydration, my God. Terry's struggle, her family's struggle, IMO, helped bring this to the forefront too. More education for the rest of us who are in a state of mind and health to document our wishes. Thank you, NDN, for this update.
Schiavo had irreversible brain damage-autopsy
Terri Schiavo, a Florida woman who died in March after a fierce right-to-die battle that involved the U.S. Congress, was severely brain damaged and had no hope of recovery, said a medical examiner who made the results of an autopsy public on Wednesday.
The autopsy found no evidence to support her family's accusations that she suffered broken bones or other injuries as a result of abuse, and also cast doubt on allegations that an eating disorder contributed to her 1990 collapse.
The extensive examination of Schiavo's body found that her brain weighed only about half of what a healthy human brain would, Pinellas County medical examiner Jon Thogmartin, said at a news conference.
"Her brain was profoundly atrophied," he said. "This damage was irreversible."
Schiavo, who suffered a cardiac arrest in 1990 that deprived her brain of oxygen, died at a Florida hospice on March 31, 13 days after her feeding tube was removed by court order. She was 41.
She had been in what courts ruled was a "persistent vegetative state," which means she was unable to think, feel, or interact with her environment since her collapse 15 years previously.
The courts sided with her husband and legal guardian, Michael Schiavo, in ruling she would not have wanted to live like that. But her parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, said she responded to them and could recover with treatment.
The Schindlers waged a seven-year legal battle to keep her alive, a cause that rallied the Christian right and prompted President Bush and the Republican-led Congress to rush through legislation giving the federal courts jurisdiction to intervene in what is normally a matter left to state courts.
Those courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, declined to order the feeding tube be reinserted.
The autopsy found that her brain was so severely damaged that no amount of therapy would have helped to regenerate it. Schiavo's parents had repeatedly said their daughter was responsive to them and could have been helped with therapy.
"She would not have been able to form any cognitive thought," said Dr. Stephen Nelson, a forensic pathologist who assisted in the autopsy. "There was a massive loss of brain tissue."
Thogmartin said Schiavo died of dehydration and did not starve to death. Supporters of Schiavo's parents had loudly complained she was being starved to death when the courts allowed the feeding tube to be removed.
DOUBT CAST ON EATING DISORDER
The medical examiner also said the autopsy cast doubt on claims that Schiavo had suffered from an eating disorder.
She was found to have low potassium levels when she was admitted to a hospital following her collapse, leading to suspicions that she suffered from bulimia. But the medical examiner said the emergency treatment Schiavo received could have affected her potassium levels.
"The original diagnosis of bulimia nervosa is suspect," Thogmartin said.
Schiavo's relatives had said she may have been abused, citing a bone scan that purportedly found broken bones. But the autopsy found that any fractures could be attributed to severe osteoporosis Schiavo suffered during the years after her collapse.
Answering another question that had been raised by her parents' supporters, Thogmartin said Schiavo could not have swallowed if she had been fed by mouth and would have choked.
"Mrs. Schiavo was dependent on nutrition and hydration by her feeding tube and removal of her feeding tube would have resulted in her death, whether she was fed and hydrated by mouth or not," he said.
The autopsy also found no evidence to support allegations that Schiavo had been given poison by her husband or that she had been mysteriously injected with something during or after a visit by her parents to the hospice where she was being cared for.
"No drugs or other substances given to Mrs. Schiavo caused her to die or accelerated the dying process," he said.
I read that as well...I find it interesting though, since PVS cannot be confirmed by pathology. So essentially, the autopsy tells nothing new. Yes, she had degeneration...but so do Alzheimer patients...or people with any number of brain disorders...some people even function normally after having half of their brain removed. The Dx is tricky...because it is irreversible in the sense that the neurons cannot be replaced...but many brains have repaired themselves in ways we do not understand. It's one of those things that we do not understand the hows or whys...it just is.
But...I don't believe that whether or not she had brain damage was the root of the controversy. When you analyze the arguments, it comes down to whether or not we, as human beings, have the right to end (or facilitate the end) of another's life.
Sadly, this is a debate that could continue forever with no resolution. No consensus can ever be reached because people view things through the filter of their own experience and worldview. Each is entitled to their opinion...but sadly, this divisive issue will continue to divide and injure.
May Terri rest in peace...and I pray for peace and comfort for her family.
Advertisements
echaos ~ Thanks for posting the article. I read similar and saw several interviews regarding the results last night. Personally felt that the autopsy provided much definitive factual information.
Many of the arguments used during this sad debate were proven completely inaccurate by the autopsy. Feeding by mouth could not have been an option, Terri would have choked. It was determined that Terri was blind which completely negated her parents belief that she followed them around the room with her eyes and reacted to their presence. The fact that there was no evidence to support the family's accusations that Terri suffered abuse by Michael ~ or that he poisoned her ~ will hopefully put those theories to rest once and for all. But, in spite of the extensive brain damage being documented and the conclusion by the medical examiner that "the damage was irreversible", the Schindler's attorney stated that the Schindler's still feel Terri could have recovered. As one of the physicians stated, "People often believe what they want to believe".
This tragic situation has motivated many people to complete the proper legal documents so they will never be forced to exist in this helpless state. To me, that's what it comes down to: whether or not we, as human beings, have the right to prolong the process of death for another human being, when there is no hope for any recovery or quality of life. Especially tragic when it is known that the person would not want to "live" like that. Is it keeping them "alive" for their benefit? Or, keeping them alive because another is unable to let them go?
In addition to filling out the proper legal documents, be sure to choose somone to act on your behalf that has the mental fortitude to carry forth your wishes.
dl posted:
Personally felt that the autopsy provided much definitive factual information.
I agree. With all of the speculations of abuse and mistreatment by Michael, I am pleased that there were some solid, indisputable answers.
Posted by NDN:
When you analyze the arguments, it comes down to whether or not we, as human beings, have the right to end (or facilitate the end) of another's life.
I certainly can't disagree with this! As one who does not choose any artificial means of being kept alive, I have the opposite fear...the fear of being kept a prisoner in my own body.
IMO, once one is in a vegatative state (as facts prove Terri was), prolonging life is inhumane. The shell of a person is nothing more than a token of our own pain at the impending loss. There is a cycle of life...death is a part of that cycle. But, that is just how I feel about my life...certainly have no intention of dictating that I have any moral grounds, spiritual insight or otherwise knowledge to say what is right for another.
IMO, dl said it all with her last statement:
In addition to filling out the proper legal documents, be sure to choose somone to act on your behalf that has the mental fortitude to carry forth your wishes.
Hopefully, I have done this...and my advocate is NOT a family member.
~Deb