What would you do?

[Rye]

I was looking through the news on my home page like I usually do and this article caught my eyes:

Brain-Damaged Woman's Feeding Tube Removed

Brain-Damaged Woman's Feeding Tube Removed
Fri Mar 18, 4:04 PM

John Centonze, brother of Michael Schiavo's girlfriend Jody, carries roses left behind by protestors outside Michael Schiavo's house, Friday, March 18, 2005, in Clearwater, Fla. The presiding judge in the case of Terri Schiavo (Michael Schiavo's wife) ruled Friday that the feeding tube keeping the brain-damaged woman alive must be removed despite efforts by congressional Republicans to have her appear at hearings. (AP Photo/Paul Kizzle)

PINELLAS PARK, Fla. - Doctors removed Terri Schiavo's feeding tube Friday despite an extraordinary, last-minute push by Republicans on Capitol Hill to use the subpoena powers of Congress to save the severely brain-damaged woman.

Schiavo's family issued a statement on their Web site confirming that the tube had been disconnected. It is expected that it will take one to two weeks for Schiavo to die, provided no one intercedes and gets the tube reinserted.

The removal came amid a flurry of maneuvering by Schiavo's parents, state lawmakers and Congress to keep her alive. Committees in the Republican-controlled Congress issued subpoenas for Schiavo, her husband, and her caregivers demanding that they appear at hearings in the coming weeks.

But the judge presiding over the case later refused a request from House attorneys to delay the removal, which he had previously ordered to take place at 1 p.m. EST.

"I have had no cogent reason why the (congressional) committee should intervene," Circuit Judge George Greer told attorneys in a conference call, adding that last-minute action by Congress does not invalidate years of court rulings.
Senator Mel Martinez, R-Fla., right, and U.S. Rep. Dave Weldon, R-Fla., left, field questions regarding the brain damaged Terri Sciavo prior to a speech by President Bush at the YMCA and Family Center in Orlando, Fla. Friday, March 18, 2005.(AP Photo/Peter Cosgrove)

The tube's removal signals that an end may be near in a decade-long family feud between Schiavo's husband and her devoutly Roman Catholic parents, Bob and Mary Schindler. The parents have been trying to oust Michael Schiavo as their daughter's guardian and keep in place the tube that has kept her alive for more than 15 years.

The tube has twice been removed in the past, but was re-inserted within days in both cases.

Michael Schiavo says his wife told him she would not want to be kept alive artificially. Her parents dispute that, saying she could get better and that their daughter has laughed, cried, smiled and responded to their voices. Court-appointed physicians testified her brain damage was so severe that there was no hope she would ever have any cognitive abilities.

Several right-to-die cases across the nation have been fought in the courts in recent years, but few, if any, have been this drawn-out and bitter.

The case has garnered attention around the world and served as a rallying cry for conservative Christian groups and anti-abortion activists, who flooded members of Congress and Florida legislators with messages seeking to keep Schiavo alive.
Rev. Patrick Mohoney, left, leads protestors in prayer outside the Woodside Hospice, where Terri Schiavo is a patient, Friday March 18, 2005 in Pinellas Park, Fla. Terri Schiavo has been in a coma-like state for 15-years and Judge George Greer has set March 18, 2005 as the date her husband Michael Schiavo can have her feeding tube removed. (AP Photo/Paul Kizzle)

Outside Schiavo's hospice, about 30 people keeping vigil dropped to their knees in prayer when word spread of the judge's ruling calling for removal of the tube.

"What can wash away our sins? Nothing but the blood of Jesus," they sang. Messages on protest signs included "Impeach Greer.com," a reference to the judge, and "Execution - It's Not Just for the Guilty Anymore."

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, told reporters in Washington earlier Friday that removal of the tube amounted to "barbarism."

But Rep. Henry Waxman of California, senior Democrat on the Government Reform Committee, called the subpoenas a "flagrant abuse of power" and amounted to Congress dictating the medical care Terri Schiavo should receive.

"Congress is turning the Schiavo family's personal tragedy into a national political farce," Waxman said.

Schiavo suffered severe brain damage in 1990 when a chemical imbalance apparently brought on by an eating disorder caused her heart to stop beating for a few minutes. She can breathe on her own, but has relied on the feeding and hydration tube to keep her alive.
Protestors pray outside Michael Schiavo's house, Friday, March 18, 2005, in Clearwater, Fla. The presiding judge in the case of Terri Schiavo ruled Friday that the feeding tube keeping the brain damaged woman alive must be removed despite efforts by congressional Republicans to have her appear at hearings. (AP Photo/Paul Kizzle)

Both sides accused each other of being motivated by greed over a $1 million medical malpractice award from doctors who failed to diagnose the chemical imbalance.

The Schindlers also said that Michael Schiavo wants their daughter dead so he can marry his longtime girlfriend, with whom he has young children. They have begged him to divorce their daughter, and let them care for her.

The tangled case has encompassed at least 19 judges in at least six different courts.

In 2001, Schiavo went without food and water for two days before a judge ordered the tube reinserted when a new witness surfaced.

When the tube was removed in October 2003, her parents and two siblings frantically sought intervention from Gov Jeb. Bush to stop her slow starvation. The governor pushed through "Terri's Law," and six days later the tube was reinserted.

That set off a new round of legal battles which culminated in September 2004 with the Florida Supreme Court ruling that Bush had overstepped his authority and declared the law unconstitutional.

The U.S. Supreme Court has been unwilling to hear arguments in the case.

On Feb. 25, Greer gave Michael Schiavo permission to order the removal of the feeding tube at 1 p.m. Friday.

The family and lawmakers continued with their fight in recent weeks.

In Tallahassee, the Florida House on Thursday passed a bill to block the withholding of food and water from patients in a persistent vegetative state who did not leave specific instructions on their care. Hours later, however, the Senate defeated a different measure 21-16.

That's really sad. It's a shame when those type of things happen. The person who goes through that isn't even living, she's just alive. I think there is a difference between the two. To be live is to feel, to love, to laugh, and to cry. To be alive is simply to be functioning.

So, I have a question... what would you do in that situation? To make this interesting, let's make two scenarios. What would you want to happen to you if you found you that you would be severely-brain damaged and vegetive in the future? What would you do if your lover was in that situation?

[udsuna]

I already have it stated legally: keep me alive long enough to harvest any useful organs. Then, at the very end, take out the things I can't live without, like heart and lungs.

As for what I'd do if something like this happened to a loved one? A lot of crying. Lots and lots and lots. But, I'd do whatever it is they asked me to.

[Casey]

Its MURDER .

.

[DMKA]

I heard about that on the news earlier. Very, very sad...I really don't know what I'd do, because the person can't very well choose in such a state, and I don't really think it's right that someone else chooses for them.

I really don't know.

[Raistlin]

I followed that case very closely throughout the day. CNN.com was updated a good four-five times today, about three times in the same two-hour period. Very big topic today.

I can't pretend to know the right choice: I don't know all the facts. I do know she's been in a "vegetative state" for the past 15 years. I do know that there have been allegations against the husband's treatment, most of them made in the past couple months. I do know that experts state that she is in a permanent "vegatative state," but that the parent's feel she can communicate. I do know a doctor who worked in hospitals and has extensive experience, and she said that the parents are deluded: people deeply in a coma can sometimes appear to respond. If all the doctors say she won't wake up and can't respond, then she won't wake up and won't respond.

That's all I know. We don't know her wishes, as 15-years-ago, these kind of wills weren't commonplace, and it is reported that she told her husband orally what she wished. The only other fact I know is that it was ruled in court that it was in Terri's best interest for the feeding tube to be removed("that is what she would have wanted"), and that both the Florida Supreme Court nor the US Supreme Court dismissed any petitions by the parents.

So, with this limited piece of knowledge that I know, I'd say the feeding tube should be removed. I also think the House Republicans are using this as a political soap box and that is disgusting.

[nik0tine]

I don't know what I would do. The woman has been in a vegatative state for 15 years. That must be a horrible way to live. I can't imagine living like that. On the other hand, however, no one has the right to end the womans life but the woman herself. Nobody can know for sure if she would prefer death over her current state. It's an argument in which both sides are both cruel and righteous at the same time.

[Raistlin]

I did a bit of searching, and after shifting through all the propaganda and nonsense, I found this excellent website: http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html. This gives an unbiased, very detailed account of exactly what happened, including a very detailed time-table. I highly suggest anyone interested in this topic click on the link and read through it.

Basically, judges in this case(from the lower court and Florida court of appeals) heard testimony from both sides, heard expert witnesses from both sides, and testimony from Michael and her parents. Both the federal court and the Florida court of appeals ruled time and again that Terri was in a persistent vegetative state with no hope of recovery, and that she would have wished to have the feeding tube removed. Florida state law mandates that the judges err on the side of life, and if both courts see clearly that Terri has not chance of recovery and would wish to have the feeding tube removed, along with both state and federal Supreme Court's dismissing the Schindler's petitions, who am I to argue?

[fire_of_avalon]

I love how the issue of medical malpractice suits fit so neatly into the story. Still fighting over that cool million while your health care provider is footing an enormous bill?

Anyway, back on topic. If it were my loved one, I don't know what I would do. It's easy to sit here and say I would let them go, but I'm a selfish brat too. All I know is when I have a will, it will be a provision that if the general consensus of experts agree that I won't survive, then I'll be euthanized.

Why starve the body? That's utterly ridiculous to do that when they could just euthanize her.

Oh wait, that's illegal. Silly me. Ok, you're right, let's let her starve.

[Garland]

If a person commits 1st degree murder and is sentenced to death, and the state proposed starvation and dehydration as the means of execution, the idea would be shot down as cruel and unusual punishment. However, if a woman suffers a tragic accident and is consigned to a wheelchair for the rest of her life, this same cruel and unusual punishment is fine. It's comforting to know that we wouldn't dare treat our most sinister of criminals the way we're perfectly happy treating our seriously ill.

[udsuna]

Actually, starvation is surprisingly painless. After the first few days, the sensation of hunger goes away, and the body starts digesting itself. The brain releases high doses of endorphines (which, in the quantities we're talking, are as powerful a narcotic as heroin) and then consumes you. As says the medical scientists who study this stuff.

It's actually far more painful to recover from the brink of starvation than to reach that point in the first place. As says people who've been there. Usually, when the scientists and the real-life participants agree, it's pretty much accurate.

[Casey]

If a person commits 1st degree murder and is sentenced to death, and the state proposed starvation and dehydration as the means of execution, the idea would be shot down as cruel and unusual punishment. However, if a woman suffers a tragic accident and is consigned to a wheelchair for the rest of her life, this same cruel and unusual punishment is fine. It's comforting to know that we wouldn't dare treat our most sinister of criminals the way we're perfectly happy treating our seriously ill.

I agree, and why even shut off the feeding tube when she's just as alive in the wheelchair. She didn't even say that she wanted to be killed this way when she's brain damaged. And she cant even defend herself, even from her own parents and husband. I just think its messed up and its murder. Its like killing a retarded person.

"Oh we gotta pull that switch, she needs to die!!"

[The Captain]

This is a case stangely similar to abortion in that, how do you define the rights of those who cannot control their own life? Sure, this woman is technically alive, but according to her husband and to several doctors, she'd much prefer not to continue on this way, yet cannot say so herself. In the end, this boils down to the need for a living will, and also, it's a very tough situation for all involved.

I think, if the husband and doctors believe that it's best to let her fade away, that is the choice that ultimately must be made. Parents of course will have an emotional attachment and will be reluctant to have their daughter die, but, if I understand law correctly, the choice and power of attorney as well as the rights affirmed go to the spouse, so in the end, it is the husband who must make this decision.

As for what I'd do:

"keep me alive long enough to harvest any useful organs. Then, at the very end, take out the things I can't live without, like heart and lungs."

I believe that is a very noble thing to do and should be applauded.

Take care all.

[Raistlin]

If a person commits 1st degree murder and is sentenced to death, and the state proposed starvation and dehydration as the means of execution, the idea would be shot down as cruel and unusual punishment. However, if a woman suffers a tragic accident and is consigned to a wheelchair for the rest of her life, this same cruel and unusual punishment is fine. It's comforting to know that we wouldn't dare treat our most sinister of criminals the way we're perfectly happy treating our seriously ill.

Gross misrepresentation. For one, she can't actually feel anything. For another, she will never wake up by the reports of numerous doctors, so she's as good as dead. What use will be keeping her "alive?"

Its like killing a retarded person.

How, exactly? A retarded person can feel and have concious thought.

It's staggering to me how many of you don't understand what the court ruled on. The court didn't rule to take the feeding tube out because that's what should happen in these instances; the courts ruled that Terri would have wanted to have the feeding tube removed.

[Dr Unne]

People should have the right to die if they're mentally competent to make that decision. There is usually a legal document required for a "do not revive" order. I don't know why there isn't one in this case, or whether or not one is even required in that state. The only question here should be what the woman wanted, not the morality or immorality of letting someone die. If I was left a vegetable by some accident, I'd want to die. No one else has the right to make that decision.

[Rye]

I don't know what I would do if the person I love was in that state, but if I were in that state I'd want to die if there wasn't a chance I could be recovered, or even better, have my organs given to people who need them, which was said before.