Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube is set to be removed at 1:00 pm, barring last minute reprieves.
President Bush comments on Terri Schiavo, “The case of Terri Schiavo raises complex issues, yet in instances like this one, where there are serious questions and substantial doubts, our society, our laws and our courts should have a presumption in favor of life. Those who live at the mercy of others deserve our special care and concern.”
Update (12:15pm): U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, M.D. (R-TN) today released the following statement, which in theory provides that last minute reprieve:
The Senate and the House remain dedicated to saving Terri Schiavo’s life. While discussions over possible legislative remedies continue, the Senate and the House are taking action to keep her alive in the interim.
HELP Committee Chairman Mike Enzi has requested the presence of Mr. and Mrs. Schiavo at an official committee hearing. He has sent a letter to the Schiavos to appear at a hearing on Monday, March 28, 2005 regarding “Health Care Provided to Non-ambulatory Persons.” The purpose of the hearing is to review health care policies and practices relevant to the care of non-ambulatory persons such as Mrs. Schiavo.
Federal criminal law protects witnesses called before official Congressional committee proceedings from anyone who may obstruct or impede a witness’ attendance or testimony. More specifically, the law protects a witness from anyone who — by threats, force, or by any threatening letter or communication – influences, obstructs, or impedes an inquiry or investigation by Congress. Anyone who violates this law is subject to criminal fines and imprisonment.There’s no indication that the removal of the feeding tube has been delayed in response…
Update 2(2:10pm): Judge Halts Removal of Feeding Tube After Congress Intervenes
MIAMI, March 18 -A Florida judge has delayed an order to remove the feeding tube from a brain-damaged Florida woman at 1 p.m. today after Washington lawmakers intervened by issuing subpoenas for the woman and her husband to appear at Congressional hearings later this month.
Update 3: (3:07pm): The original judge smacked down the judge in Update 2…
PINELLAS PARK, Fla. (AP) – 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 block the move by seeking her appearance at hearings.
Pinellas Circuit Judge George Greer refused a request from U.S. House attorneys to delay the removal, which he had previously ordered to take place at 1 p.m. EST. Greer determined that it should go forward about an hour after another judge issued a temporary delay blocking the tube’s removal.
The tube is coming out today…
Update 4(3:52pm) Terri Schiavo’s Feeding Tube Removed Fox News
AMEN GWB…AMEN
She has no brain. She’s not even human any more. Let her die.
One particularly troubling aspect of this case is the fact that Terri Schiavo’s husband is the driving force behind the “right to die” argument, and he’s apparently moved on with his life, even though he won’t divorce Terri. I suspect this has a lot to do with the $1.4M Terri was awarded in a 1992 malpractice suit (a detail that news coverage has pretty much left out).
Also, having permanent brain damage is not the same thing as being “vegetative.”
If Michael Schiavo is allowed to do this to his wife, Scott Peterson should be freed, and all charges dropped against Mark Hacking.
I think that if she’s subpoenaed, she’ll have more to say than any of the professional baseball players who have been up on Capitol Hill.
BoDiddley, if Mr. Sciavo only wants to “kill” his wife for the million dollars, than please explain why he didn’t take the million dollars offered to him by the independant business-man, he turned it down flat out. And comparing this to the murder of Laci and Connor Peterson is just ignorant.
When my quality of life reaches that of a hydroponics farm, I pray my loved ones have the guts to turn off the faucet.
RE: Laurence Simon’s post (March 18, 2005 10:31 AM)
I think that if she’s subpoenaed, she’ll have more to say than any of the professional baseball players who have been up on Capitol Hill.
Topical and bitingly insightful. Very clever.
PS – Canseco was the only realist of the bunch. Sosa may have had a language-barrier excuse… so what was McGwire’s? Embarrassing. That’s the highest intellect MLBPA and Congress could muster?
Bo-Diddley – the $1.1M is almost entirely gone paying for her care thus far, and is controlled by the courts, so no he didn’t fritter it all away. $300K of the settlement was awarded directly to Michael.
I’m going to offer a new rule that certainly won’t make me any friends here:
Before obsessing about the travails of the Terri Schiavo case and posting commentary to such issues, one must have his/her own house in order.
Seriously, we all understand this tragic case to be particularly emotional and divisive. However, why is it so? Is it because of political positioning? Or is it because we want to share our relative ethics on life or debate its very definition? OK, but make sure that when you do that you have cared about your own self and family enough to have created your own living will so that we don’t have to repeat this exercise should you become the victim and the media/litigators/legislators latch on.
Would it not be more productive to your own lives to redirect the effort of this debate to personally and explicitly clarifying what you will or will not do under circumstances similar to Schiavo’s? Could that not be the legacy she leaves whenever that date arrives – that her example motivated action on your part to define your (non-)existence?
For all of you already with living wills, please carry on since you have taken sincere and concrete steps to cement your position. You deserve more consideration for your position.
Let the flames begin…
D-Hoggs:
What do you qualify as “ignorant” about the comparison? Both Michael Schiavo and Scott Peterson want(ed) their respective wives out of their way. And to date, nobody has offered any solid reason why Michael won’t simply divorce her and allow her family to take care of her.
There are thousands of people who have been left by disease, trauma, or old age in a situation where they must be assisted to live. To say that this lady should be starved to death is simply barbaric.
And to Timmer and flaime–go to her foundation’s website: http://www.terrisfight.org/ and watch the videos of her. They’re not by any means pleasant to watch, but they do indicate that she’s at least partially cognizant of her surroundings and can respond to various stimuli. Again, this is not a person who is truly in a vegetative state. This is an individual with a severe disability who can only expect limited recovery at best.
If you truly never want to risk being in the same state as Terri, sign an advance directive while you can. Simple as that. She didn’t, and she has a family who cares for her and is optimistic about the level of function she may be able to achieve, in stark contrast to a husband who wants her out of his life.
Also, the amount was $1.4M, with an additional $250,000 that went to Terri previously, and an additional $600,000 to Michael. Nearly $1M was to go into a medical trust fund to be only used for her medical expenses, but some (perhaps nearly all) of that has been used to pay Michael’s legal expenses–not necessarily towards her care–with the blessing of Judge Greer, who has ordered feeding to be removed on several occasions.
the $1.1M is almost entirely gone paying for her care thus far, and is controlled by the courts, so no he didn’t fritter it all away. $300K of the settlement was awarded directly to Michael.
One has to wonder how much he is going to get from life insurance policies.
I promised myself to confine my bile to the previous thread, but can’t resist. Her “husband-guardian” apparently was too cheap and uncaring to buy her a toothbrush. That’s a sarcastic way to describe the fact that she has lost numerous teeth due to massive decay caused by neglect. I am ignorant about PVS (and many other things) but do have special knowledge about dental care for incapacitated persons. Extent this obvious lack of concern to other facets of her care and it is a tribute to her inner-strength that she is still alive.
Oops, I meant “advance directive” and not “living will” since BoDiddly’s term is the more precise one.
D-Hoggs
“if Mr. Sciavo only wants to “kill” his wife for the million dollars, than please explain why he didn’t take the million dollars offered to him”
You are joking right? He is going to get the money if she dies because of life insurance policies. He is not going to accept a buy out as he would look like the pond scum that he is.
No one makes a deal if the deal is no better than the eventual outcome. Michael moved on with his life and he should with this as well. Seems like he had no problem forgetting about Terri when he moved in with his “common law” wife and had kids.
He would never take the money in the way it was offered because it would expose him for what he really is.
Oh, please, Joser. “Control freaks?” You’re as much guilty of being one of those in your support of putting her to death. Michael has NOT taken care of Terri. He said he was going to, but once the first monetary awards were dropped into his lap soon after her incapacitation, that talk ended. You talk about thinking rationally, but you simply cannot rationally say what Terri would or would not have wanted. Her alleged wish to “be put asleep” (what is she, a dog?) is nothing – NOTHING – but hearsay about an offhand remark she supposedly said while once watching a movie. She had no written directive. Tell me, is it rational to make a life-or-death decision based upon hearsay? Hardly.
Oh, and Joser, what do you think is rational about Terri’s wishes regarding her marriage? Do you think she’d want to remain married to a man who is engaged to another woman whom he has had children with?
Um, Joser . . . one other small item:
“. . .long after her soul has departed her body probably . . .”
When, exactly do you consider that the soul likely leaves the body? Cessation of brain activity? Cessation of cardiac/pulmonary function? She certainly doesn’t suffer from either.
And as a sidebar to you, personally, you should really look into properly equipping yourself with some basic tools before attempting to engage in a debate. I’d start by looking into a few topics like “idea development,” “sentence structure,” “word usage and grammar,” and “spelling.”
Yikes, perhaps one would argue that the ends justify the means, but what the hell is the federal government doing in this case? As fetuses continue to be murdered, and prisoners are sentenced to death row, they spend valuable time on this ONE PERSON, which is sucking all the life out of more important problems. Oh yeah, they had time for baseball players as well.
I agree with those who suggest that this case is a good chance for everyone to reflect on their personal values and then put in writing what course of action they would prefer if this were to happen to them.
But let me also throw this out there. This entire scenario is, as I understand it, the result of modern medical technology. Without technological assistance Schiavo would die a natural death. With extensive physical therapy could she learn to swallow again? Is she even capable of learning? If that option has not been tried then it should be. If it has with the current results, then what we’re really talking about is whether or not it is morally ethical and responsible to sustain life unnaturally, that is beyond the body’s natural ability to sustain itself. IN that case, how can we say for sure that it isn’t the feeding tube, a man-made technological instrument, that isn’t thwarting God’s will here? Just a question.
If nothing else, Terri Schiavo’s plight has taught me a lesson:
After 14 years of being in the wilderness (so to speak), I may have a special woman in my life…so special, we may begin to talk of marriage. One of the first things I will do with her, should she become my wife, is to sit down and discuss this issue with her, if anything similar to Terri’s condition should happen to me or to her, and put this in writing and get it notarized.
Perhaps THAT is the moral of the story here, not whether the feeding tube should be removed. I can’t make that kind of decision over anyone, it would agonize me. That’s why I would turn it over to GOD and let Him make that decision.
Excellent thoughts, Macker. Terri’s life is important, but so are our own lives. Everyone needs a will. Don’t let live-or-death decisions for you be made by a handful of people based upon nothing but hearsay regarding something you may or may not have said one time.
Judge blocks feeding tube removal
Macker it isn’t just a matter of discussing it with her, but putting it in writing.
The problem with this case is that there is nothing in writing, and the only witness to her supposed desire to die, is the man who will benefit most from her death.
As for Michael not taking the money-he couldn’t-he has painted himself into the “I am not doing this for money” corner, and to take it now would only prove him to be the scum he actually is. A man who has moved on with his life, with another woman and children, should not be the person making these decision.
Her parents want to take care of her in their home-why not give them their wish-it isn’t going to hurt Michael-and it isn’t going to hurt Terri.
frameone, without “technological assistance,” as you call it, diabetics would die a natural death, too. Your point of view, if accepted, would call for an immediate cessation of any medical research.
This isnt’ a case of someone trying to disconnect life-support from a person who’s brain-dead. That is done daily, as it’s generally recognized that after brain activity ceases, life has ended, with no regard to the state of the body. Terri still has (obviously) significant brain activity. The only thing she depends upon medically for existance is a feeding tube–the same medical device that keeps numerous survivors of throat and esophageal cancer alive every day. Are you (and others here) really willing to withhold food from this lady, who likely knows at least something about what is going on around her, who does respond to tactile and verbal stimuli, who would almost certainly feel pain, and watch silently as she starves to death over the next couple of weeks?
I’m curious, too, as to which decision would, in your line of thinking, be infringing more upon God’s territory? The decision to actively attempt to sustain life or the decision to actively end life?
BTW, I know I’m delving into a little theology here, but the concept of anything “thwarting God’s will” is really a stretch. Either God is sovereign or He isn’t. If He isn’t, then He isn’t God–He’s just another guy trying to get His way. I personally hate the “leave it up to God” cop-out. The old saying goes: “Pray like it’s all up to God, but work like it’s all up to you.” He really doesn’t expect us to just “enjoy the ride.”
re Frameone:
Excellent point, but…
Shortly after the malpractice lawsuits were concluded Michael Schiavo prohibited all rehabilitation efforts for Terri. He refused all attempts to see if Terri could be taught to be fed by spoon. He also determined that toothbrushing was a form of rehab and prohibited that, as well as oral abd gyn exams until recently.
A petition to the court (Judge Greer) requested that spoon feeding be attempted if the feeding tube were d/c-ed. The judge refused, with the reason that Terri might choke and die.
At this point, no one knows what Terri’s capabilities, or wishes are.
One more little item, then I promise to be quiet for awhile (and I promise I’m not trying to re-direct this debate):
It’s almost humorous to me that folks like frameone will fiercely defend the rights of homosexuals to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” when discussing the right to marry, but they’re unwilling to stand up for the simple right to “life” for people like Terri.
Maybe homosexuals choose to be so, maybe they don’t. We know Terri didn’t choose to be in her particular state. If either group is entitled to the special consideration given to minorities, shouldn’t it be those who are severely disabled?
There is a lot more going on here than a ‘brain-dead’ woman. Her husband will not let any doctors examine her. Judge Greer is going on hearsay testimony of one person. Terri’s condition was brought about under suspicsious circumstances.
I agree that most of the settlement will be gone and Michael Shivo has turned down the $1Mil. But since there has been some speculation that he beat his wife & that lead to her condition could indicate he wants her dead so she can’t testify against him. It would be hard to spend that $$ while in prison.
As for Judge Greer and his constant insistance on killing this woman, I can only assume that Shivo has something on him.
We should always err on the side of llife. If Terri DID have a living will, or there were multiple witnesses that could testify to her wishes, then I say society should respect those. However, Judge Greer is deciding this woman’s life on less testimony than would be valid in a probate hearing.
Bo —
You’re absolutely right that technology plays a vital role in sustaining life everyday. I should have thought my comments through a little more. My ultimate point though, clumsily expressed, is that deciding this issue becomes even more complicated, if not impossible, when and if we reduce it to discerning God’s will which seems to me to be fairly strong strain in the debate.
When Macker writes “That’s why I would turn it over to GOD and let Him make that decision.” I take it to mean that this is a private matter between a person and their god. That’s the only way that this can be decided. Terry’s husband says he knows Terry’s will and he’s a practicing Catholic so I assume he’s prayed over the matter. How could anyone here dare to presume that this isn’t good enough?
A petition to the court (Judge Greer) requested that spoon feeding be attempted if the feeding tube were d/c-ed. The judge refused, with the reason that Terri might choke and die.
That’s pretty bass-ackwards logic. He can order her to definitely die from startvation/dehydration, but refuses to allow her swallowing to be medically tested because she might choke and die? This moron shouldn’t be on the bench!
Bo —
I don’t know what should be done in this situation. I just believe that there’s been way too much outside interference now with Washington getting involved.
My fiance’s grandfather suffered a stroke last year at the age of 95. He’s a tough old guy. After being paralyzed, mute and on a feeding tube, he, through his own efforts and with family at his side, is off the feeding tube and able to make audible sounds, move his arms and walk. The greatets danger now is that he keeps getting out of his hospital bed at night and falling. His daughter (my fiances mother) had a decision to make in the hours after his stroke whether or not put him on a ventilator. She decided that they should use it. Even now that he’s off the ventilator and feeding tube he requires 24 hour supervision to keep him from getting up and walking. It’s putting my mother-in-law in extreme debt for private nurses and short of strapping him down every night there’s no other viabel option. This is a scenario that could go on for years.
Not two days ago, she asked me and my fiance over the phone to promise her that if what happened to her father, happened to her, we should not try to resucitate her. What can you say to that? I’d be damn pissed if we tried to carry out her wishes and then some governor told me I couldn’t and some blog posters called me a greedy bastard because they had a better idea of what God wanted.
RE: Dwayne “the canoe guy”‘s post (March 18, 2005 01:24 PM)
As for Judge Greer and his constant insistance on killing this woman, I can only assume that Shivo has something on him.
…However, Judge Greer is deciding this woman’s life on less testimony than would be valid in a probate hearing.
Say what you will about the court’s interpretation of law, his handling of evidence, and any legal motivations of such, but I find your assumption overtly scurrilous and unfair. You are extrapolating that Mr. Schiavo has some dirt on the judge and that is why he has ruled the way he has? Hyperbole for some sort of effect? That’s a heck of a smear that you have just leveled… care to elaborate?
Judge blocks feeding tube removal
Posted by: Jinx McHue at March 18, 2005 01:13 PM
They changed it! >:( Why can’t these news websites use different URLs for different stories or different versions instead of constantly changing the story on one specific page?
Everyone that would want to be kept alive the way Terri is, please raise your hand. From personal experience, I saw my Grandmother waste away in a nursing home for 5 years, after massive strokes took all of her brain activity. She couldn’t do anything! She told us that she didn’t want to live in a nursing home or when she didn’t recognize anyone anyone. But being as she was the one to sign the papers to have the feeding tube put in we couldn’t have it removed. She lost more than 100 pounds and had many bed sores before she died. She didn’t know anyone and slept most of the time. Yes, there were times when she would smile but, most of the time she would moan and cry, kind of like a baby, but with no meaning. At least when a baby cries, it has a reason. I loved my Grandmother, but she didn’t want to be kept alive this way. Even though she had the feeding tube put in she had also sign a do not recessitate order at the same time.
Look into your own heart and tell me you would want to be kept alive this way? She is being kept alive artifically, she can’t swallow her own food and can’t speak or have control of her own bodily functions. And if your wondering, I don’t want to be kept alive this way. I believe that the only way they should be put in is if there is a chance of life without it later.
Look into your own heart and tell me you would want to be kept alive this way?
As I wrote on my blog, there’s a difference between stating “I wouldn’t want to live like that” and “I want to be put to death if I end up like that.” No one wants to end up brain damaged. No one wants to live like that, but that’s not the same as wanting to die if one ends up like that.
I wouldn’t want to live like that, but if I do end up in such a state, I wouldn’t want to be put to death and I especially wouldn’t want to be starved to death. We can’t do that to an animal, so why can we do it to a person? Can anyone answer that question for me? Anyone?
She is being kept alive artifically,
So? As someone rightly pointed out earlier, people on insulin are being kept alive artificially. Do we stop giving them insulin and let them die? Critically injured people are kept alive artificially. Do we stop trying to save the lives of people involved in car accidents? Do we stop trying to save the lives of children who get hurt?
she can’t swallow her own food
She’s never been given the chance to re-learn how to swallow food, however, as far as I know, she swallows saliva just fine.
and can’t speak or have control of her own bodily functions.
Well, Heaven forbid we let anyone with disabilities like that live! Hey, let’s starve severely developmentally disabled people (like ones I work with) if they can’t speak or control their own bodily functions! Many of them can’t. Next, we’ll put para- and quadrapelegics out of their misery by starving them to death, too.
Meanwhile, I am forbidden to kill the bats that invade my attic every year.
Go figure…
Re: Frameone’s comment
“Not two days ago, she asked me and my fiance over the phone to promise her that if what happened to her father, happened to her, we should not try to resucitate her. What can you say to that? “
You can say “put it writing, mom, you want a DNR.” Terri didn’t, and there is serious question whether she did feel that way. And if Terri’s family didn’t love her and want to take care of her, chances are “some governor” wouldn’t have tried to say Michael couldn’t remove the feeding tube and bloggers everywhere wouldn’t be calling Michael a “greedy bastard”.
Re: Net’s comment –
“Look into your own heart and tell me you would want to be kept alive this way? She is being kept alive artifically, she can’t swallow her own food and can’t speak or have control of her own bodily functions. And if your wondering, I don’t want to be kept alive this way. I believe that the only way they should be put in is if there is a chance of life without it later. “
We’re all free to decide what we would like to have done in a situation like this – and yes, the lesson we have all learned is to put it in writing. However, affidavits have been filed by some of Terri’s nurses stating that she can swallow to a certain extent and she tries to speak and even can say a few words. The fact is, her husband has not allowed her any sort of therapy that may allow her to swallow and even speak since the day he received the malpractice award, so we don’t know whether there’s going to be the ability to remove it again later.
Terri’s family has compiled affidavits from about 30 doctors who believe she should be examined again to verify the diagnosis of PVS (which sounds very doubtful based on the testimony I’ve read) and that she could benefit from therapy that has been denied her, and I personally think that needs to be done.
A Florida judge has delayed an order to remove the feeding tube from a brain-damaged Florida woman at 1 p.m. today after Washington lawmakers intervened by issuing subpoenas for the woman and her husband to appear at Congressional hearings later this month.
I certainly don’t suppose to know what should be done with this woman (though I think the law states it pretty clearly), but I think this reveals that in this age where machines can keep our bodies alive long after we are gone there should be legal ways to end a life purposefully and quickly (instead of starvation). However, I do hope that if I were in a situation like Terri’s, Congress would not get involved, but instead would focus on the important issues before them, like what baseball players inject into their asses.
As I wrote on my blog, there’s a difference between stating “I wouldn’t want to live like that” and “I want to be put to death if I end up like that.”
I want to be put to death if I end up like that. I would prefer something quick like lethal injection, but if they had to pump me full of drugs and starve me because the law says so, so be it. If I didn’t leave a living will (I have one, but for the sake of argument), I would want the hospital/courts to listen to my wife, who would have a better idea than anyone how I felt about it. So in this I’m in agreement with the law.
I’m curious, how would people who oppose the removal of the feeding tube like to see the laws changed, if at all? For the sake of argument, forget whether or not Terri is PVT, but rather what do you think should be done with those who are? Shouldn’t their spouse (or other next of kin if not married) be the one to decide? If it is your position that a)Terri is not PVT, or b)the entire Florida judicial system is out to kill this women and are ignoring the facts, then nevermind. In essence, should the law be changed? And if not, what the hell is Congress doing involved in all this?
Posted by: mantis at March 18, 2005 02:59 PM
…but instead would focus on the important issues before them, like what baseball players inject into their asses.
Or what asses get injected into baseball.
Too harsh? Heh, have you (generic) listened to the recent testimony?
“She is being kept alive artifically, she can’t swallow her own food and can’t speak or have control of her own bodily functions. “
There is evidence that she was improving with therapy before the court awarded money for her care. After the money was awarded the husband demanded all therapy be stopped. He will not allow even the stimulation of a TV or radio in her room. I think the biggest problem with this is that Michael Schiavo says one thing but lives another.
He has a fiancee and children with her. They have apparently been together for years.
He refuses to even allow regular checkups or medication for illnesses Terry might have. He spent some of the money for her care on legal fees to get her feeding tube removed. He would not allow Terry to even attempt to swallow on her own.
I think Terry should be allowed to have therapy to see if she shows any improvement in her cognitive abilities and/or ability to swallow on her own. If her parents are willing to take care of her it will be no problem for Michael. He could divorce her and get on with his life.
Of course, he does want her cremated immediately after she dies. I wonder why?
Shouldn’t their spouse (or other next of kin if not married) be the one to decide?
Sure, if one has a will stating exactly what their desires are and who should execute them (the desires, I mean). If not, all you’ve got to go on is – at best – hearsay. Life-or-death decisions should never, ever be based upon hearsay.
Not everyone has a living will Jinx. If they don’t, you’re saying, the next of kin should have no say? I suppose you should write your congressman about changing the law then.
Net: I have to tell you that deciding whether or not a person should be starved to death based on whether or not YOU want to live like that way is a pretty self absorbed point of view. This is not about you and how you wish to live. This is about Terri, and Terri is Catholic. Her husband never mentioned that she had supposedly expressed a wish to die rather than be incapacitated until he won a lawsuit on her behalf, giving him money.
Lots of money.
There is no reason to believe that Terri really doesn’t wish to live this way. There’s even less evidence that she would wish to die this way.
Hardly anybody would choose to live that way, but that doesn’t mean they would choose to die this way.
Terri swallows- she swallows her own saliva, and she might be able to swallow food, but neither her husband nor Judge Greer have permitted her to have a swallow test or permitted anybody to feed her.
Christopher Reeve was incontinent and wore a diaper, I believe.
I’ve blogged more about this, including the self-absorbed point of view that Terri should be starved to death because others wouldn’t want to live like her.
Our daughter is profoundly retarded. I bet you wouldn’t want to live like her, either, but we have no intention of shortening her life, regardless.
Btw, Terri’s brain is not gone. She has not ever had an MRI, and the test they did use is not good enough to diagnose PVS.
For more on that, see my blog- I tried adding the links here, but it didn’t work.
Terri’s never had an MRI, never had any doctor spend the time with her necessary to diagnose PVS.
mantis–you are totally correct in your first post. The law does state clearly what should be done:
Florida Statute 765.309 Mercy killing or euthanasia not authorized; suicide distinguished. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to condone, authorize, or approve mercy killing or euthanasia, or to permit any affirmative or deliberate act or omission to end life other than to permit the natural process of dying.
Someone else may want to delve into the question of why the judiciary involved (Judge Greer, most notably) seems intent upon neglecting Florida law in this case?
No law in this case needs to be changed–just enforced.
frameone:
It’s putting my mother-in-law in extreme debt for private nurses and short of strapping him down every night there’s no other viabel option.
And, God forbid that you or your fiance actually give her a hand, either fianancially, or with caring for him. You go on and on in every thread with your phony iamliberalcompassionateguy and youallarebloodsuckingfascists meme. You’re a joke.
“I’m curious, how would people who oppose the removal of the feeding tube like to see the laws changed, if at all? “
Okay I will play. First I would require that any desires in this must be put in writing.
If there is nothing in writing and there is a dispute between family members (ie in this case the only person who says Terri wished to be removed is her husband, all of Terri’s family and friends say Terri never told them of her desire), then I don’t think the person/people who stand to benefit monetarily from the death of the person, be the one who gets to make this decision. I would probably say that in these cases a guardian ad litem be appointed to actually make decisions for the patient, and I think absent clear indications of their desire, that the government should er on the side of life and continue the feeding tube.
Basically this law can easily be a lesson to anyone who feels passionately about this, and if they are too lazy to get their wishes in writing, then a consequence of their procrastination is that they may end up on a feeding tube until they die.
Oh and I also think that if the decision making spouse has moved on, gotten himself a live in girlfriend and started making babies, that the law should pretty much remove their right to make decisions for the spouse. Having a person move in, and making babies with them, is pretty much an emotional divorce, even if it isn’t a legal one.
But julie liberals believe that making the taxpayer foot the bills is the way the show compassion-liberals only believe in showing their compassion through government programs, they don’t want to actually be reponsible for any care and support themselves.
or to permit any affirmative or deliberate act or omission to end life other than to permit the natural process of dying.
I think the law considers not feeding someone that is incapable of feeding his/herself as a natural process of dying, and the feeding through a tube as unnatural, and therefore does not consider this type of thing euthanasia.
Just Me,
Your idea of a guardian ad litem is entirely reasonable, but how far does that go? Imagine a situation in which a patient could either undergo risky surgery with a poor chance of survival, or without surgery would probably live but suffer brain damage as a result (this is not all that uncommon). The patient is unable to make the decision for him/herself, should the next of kin get to make that decision, or a guardian ad litem?
Oh, and as interesting as your idea of emotional divorce may be, how would one prove that in court?
And as far as this goes:
liberals believe that making the taxpayer foot the bills is the way the show compassion-liberals only believe in showing their compassion through government programs
Utter bs. I’m a liberal and I show compassion in many ways not at all related to “government programs”. You reveal yourself as very close-minded and ignorant with statements like that. Just think about all of the liberal charity and aid groups that get no government assistance.