The Politics of Terri

[SamSpade]

Post your theories here! What do you suppose is making the Republicans turn this woman into their own personal political football? Do you think it's because of the abortion issue? Or pandering to the "religious right" (whatever that means)? Or trying to take attention away from other matters?

I'll listen to all comers because I can't for the life of me figure it out.

I think they see the violation of a person's rights, and the needless taking of a life.

You've sufficiently persuaded me on this issue that I'm not strongly on the "save Terri" side. But what I am now is undecided, and without sufficient evidence, I don't think I can choose a side. I've now seen outright refutations on both sides of things previously reported as bona fide facts. Not disputes. Refutations. Assertions that are clearly proven false. Even a few facts stated on this board that I've seen later is just medically untrue.

That's why it bothers me a little when everyone clambers aboard the bandwagon, because they presume some things are facts, when they're not. I've argued this issue on other boards, and it surprises me who's on what side on the issue.

When you build an argument, you try to base it on a few facts. The most basic fact in Terri's case is her PVS condition. I talked this weekend with a medical professional who has dealt with PVS victims over the last 30 years. Her opinion is that Terri is very severely brain-damaged and could not ever hope to recover from that state - but that she is *NOT* PVS. That appears to be the opinion of one of Terri's former neurologists as well. So the situation is still, the basic fact of her condition is seriously in dispute.

I'm neither of the opinion of "well, the courts have ruled, so why am I challenging their opinion". The hell with the courts. The court has repeatedly removed and re-inserted her feeding tube. They are arbiters of *law*, not of *truth*. To go back and forth as they have clearly demonstrates this. If they change their mind about it tomorrow, will *they* then be wrong?

I still don't have a good answer for why Michael Shiavo didn't divorce her and why he doesn't relinquish guardianship to her parents. From what I've seen, while he hasn't made a fortune from her case (his lawyers, however, *HAVE*), he's turned a small sum, and it's a serious conflict of interest for him to be the last word as to whether or not she gets divorced from him. His actions over the last several years effectively constitute divorce, without the legal details.

What I dispute then, is his right to retain guardianship. He can't speak for Terri, and himself at the same time. This would be a violation of her rights, which is one of the things the Republicans are crowing about - the only person who legally has a right to speak for her has a conflict of interest, and therefore, she is being denied her due process rights. She has a right to have someone other than Michael decide whether or not she gets divorced.

I think there's enough dirt on the husband's side to warrant investigation. But at the moment, time is on his side - *he* can wait, Terri can not.

 

[Ken King]

Great post

 

[Larry Gude]

This is surreal...

Guilty until proven innocent...?

Sam says:

"I think there's enough dirt on the husband's side to warrant investigation"


And how many times has the legal system looked at this very thing? And how many times has it been appealed? And how many times has the ruling been in his favor? And how many times have the Schindlers wheeled out a new allegation or version of events only to have the whole thing reviewed all over again and turn out the same way?

You know, time used to be the only people who went through endless appeals processes were those convicted of something.

 

[Larry Gude]

Great post?

Great post

Great post?

 

[Ken King]

Guilty until proven innocent...?

Sam says:

"I think there's enough dirt on the husband's side to warrant investigation"


And how many times has the legal system looked at this very thing? And how many times has it been appealed? And how many times has the ruling been in his favor? And how many times have the Schindlers wheeled out a new allegation or version of events only to have the whole thing reviewed all over again and turn out the same way?

You know, time used to be the only people who went through endless appeals processes were those convicted of something.

Warrant investigation, meaning look into it to find out, no condemnation of guilt that for some reason is popping in to your new found liberal mind.

 

[Larry Gude]

Am I miss-reading this?

I talked this weekend with a medical professional who has dealt with PVS victims over the last 30 years. Her opinion is that Terri is very severely brain-damaged and could not ever hope to recover from that state - but that she is *NOT* PVS. That appears to be the opinion of one of Terri's former neurologists as well. So the situation is still, the basic fact of her condition is seriously in dispute.

A person who's opinion you accept says she is way messed up, seriosuly brain damaged and that the parents are completely wrong that Terri can or will ever improve yet on the other hand she is not in a persistant vegetive state. One of her doctors appears to share that opinion? Most of the rest don't.

Severely brain damaged with no hope is better than PVS with no hope?

 

[Larry Gude]

Alas...

Warrant investigation, meaning look into it to find out, no condemnation of guilt that for some reason is popping in to your new found liberal mind.

Ken, how much looking into the timeline of events in Terri's case have you done?

It seems you guys are throwing this stuff out there because it doesn't sound right and saying, clearly, that the courts and judges, who have looked at evey single allegation the Schindlers have raised, are simply wrong.

 

[Larry Gude]

Sigh...

...in the words of Daniel Patrick Moynihan...

your new found liberal mind

The mud slinging has begun.

 

[Railroad]

...in the words of Daniel Patrick Moynihan...




The mud slinging has begun.

Yup, I'm outta here.

 

[SamSpade]

A person who's opinion you accept says she is way messed up, seriosuly brain damaged and that the parents are completely wrong that Terri can or will ever improve yet on the other hand she is not in a persistant vegetive state. One of her doctors appears to share that opinion? Most of the rest don't.

A person who's not an expert on Terri, but whose opinion I do trust - versus a cadre of medical professionals, some of whom I do not trust or have no reason to.

You know, it's not as though I'm disputing the situation with people who have *zero* bias on their side, either. I've grown weary of discussing the hazards of smoking with people who after forty and fifty years of medical data still believe the jury is still out on that one.

I'm not convinced she's PVS. Convince me. Is it your opinion that only the ones stating she is, are unbiased? That the ones who dispute that - only they are confused and letting their feelings mar their judgment? Isn't that revealing a bit of a hasty judgment and bias? It's not as though the courts in Florida haven't made some *very* bad a nd biased decisions in the past.

Severely brain damaged with no hope is better than PVS with no hope?

No - but it changes the situation, doesn't it? You can let a mental vegetable die with a clear conscience, knowing you are ending a useless existence. But you wouldn't end the life of someone with Down's syndrome, just because they're brain-damaged.

I wish I could remember everything this medical professional told me. She told me there are different levels of awareness or consciousness (my words) and they are quantified on a sliding scale. Her remarks were that PVS victims do not react at all to their environment. She even mentioned that in some cases, their eyelids have to be treated with some kind of gel to prevent drying, because in some cases, they don't even blink. They don't look at you. They rarely make sounds. They're as close to corpse-like as you can get. She didn't notice this at all in Terri, but, admittedly, she's never met her - just, tons of PVS victims.

BUT - that's not my concern in this matter, as I stated previously. I *don't* know - I don't know her situation, and I don't think anyone here does, either, even though everyone wants to. But it does seem clear to me, her husband shouldn't have the rights of guardianship over her. It's her rights that I dispute, not her medical condition. (That, to me, is enough in dispute).

I do try to keep abreast of facts on either side. I heard Sean Hannity yesterday saying, "if she's not in pain, why is she on a morphine drip?". Good question. She's not. She was given two very small doses of morphine after the tube was removed, although I really don't know why. It was claimed further that Michael refused to allow an autopsy. Well THAT isn't true, either, although he only relented yesterday.

I *am* willing to discuss the facts in this case and I am willing to listen to sound argument. I just don't think many people on either side are keeping their feelings out of it.

At this late stage, however, it's all moot. Very few people can recover from 11 days without food or water.

 

[Larry Gude]

Not me...

Yup, I'm outta here.

I've always been intrigued, greatly when good, intelligent people see a simple and clear issue so differently. Moreso because I know and totally respect both Sam and Ken for sure and have good to high regard for a lot of others posting on this thing.

Usually, one person or another is misisng a key piece of information or critical fact. Not the case here. We're ALL experts on Terri.

Often it is simply a philosophical difference which can be fun as well.

On occaison it's reduced to stubborness.

We've got Sam, once of the more brillaint, analytical people I've ever met hanging his hat on a miracle. She COULD recover. She's not PVS, she's severely brain damaged.

And Ken, Mr. Process, a guy I'd want as my lawyer, advocating tossing out every ruling and appeal in the whole case because Michael moved on with his life. I think Ken sees a disloyalty here on the part of Schiavo he will not tolerate.

 

[SamSpade]

On occaison it's reduced to stubborness.

Well, Larry, like I said - it's not as though *everyone* isn't letting their feelings in on this. We're not dealing with math, demographics, and budgets - it's life and death. Gotta go emotional on that one. But I ain't calling names just yet.

We've got Sam, once of the more brillaint, analytical people I've ever met

"once"? (You misspelled brilliant, by the way).

hanging his hat on a miracle.

I think that's a stretch. Like I said, I talked with someone who told me, that ain't gonna happen. Even the ones who say it, are reaching - they're hoping she'll rise above vegetable-level to being able to look you in the eye level. They know she'll never recover.

(ON a side note, it's not an abandonment of reason to "hang your hat on a miracle". Terri's situation aside - I wouldn't like living in a world that didn't have them).

She COULD recover. She's not PVS, she's severely brain damaged.

But it makes a difference in her rights, doesn't it? PVS is fairly clear, and morally I have zero objection to allowing a person to die who isn't "in there" anymore. I don't object to the abrupt termination of a life that is nothing more than a prolongation of endless agony - you shoot someone who is burning to death, to be merciful. These are moral, ethical issues. PVS? Yes - end it. You're uprooting a weed, you're turning off a light - there's no moral dilemma.

Brain-damaged changes things. It means there's a conscious entity in there. ALL of the previous arguments end there, because now, we're dealing with a conscious mind.

AGAIN - this is not my bailiwick. It's rights that concern me. I have no dog in this hunt, regarding her medical condition - I don't know, it's pointless, and there's enough evidence for me to suspect, there's cause for doubt.

 

[Larry Gude]

Sam...

I'm not convinced she's PVS. Convince me. Is it your opinion that only the ones stating she is, are unbiased?

I can't. I don't even know the docs who've ruled her PVS. Can't name one. What I see is a body that lost everything it was 15 years ago. That's what the ones, mostly, who treated her say and it's been checked and double checked and triple checked and appealed and reviewed again. It's not ONE guy with his ass on the line.

I have very limited personal experience with this kind of thing with the kid in the nieghborhood. He is in 'an altered state'. He is making progress. He is starting to chew and swallow and mumbling words. He recognizes people. This after less than a year.

That said, one of his specialists says, flat out, IF (big if) he ever comes back all the way, he won't remember any of this and likely won't remember much of his life before the accident. His case is rough and it is WAY better than Terri's situation.

After having said that, it is STILL up to her husband what to do and he says she wouldn't want this. At best he's telling the truth and the folks can't face it. At worst he's lying and there is simply no compelling reason to disqualify him. There is no case to be made that she ever said otherwise and that has been reviewed and ruled on and appealed and so on and so forth.

These people lived together for the first two years of this. I would think they had many a conversation as to what Terri would want and what they should do and when. I think nobody wanted to give up until they felt they'd tried
everything. This with a backdrop of experts telling them and them verifying for themselves, that Terri is in very bad shape and the vast majority of people in her condition never recover anything.

I think after 2-5 years, Michael, right or wrong, was emotionaly done with Terri. I think he accepted that was it, she'd never get better and I think he rationalized with all the docs and experts that this what all there'd ever be.

He moved on.

I think the parents are guilt ridden that they failed as parents when she was a kid which led to her self esteem issues which led to her belimia which lead to today. So, now they want to be these completely commited parents they never were. Now that it's to late. I think we all know parents like that.

I think they took out all their frustrations and anger and fears on Michael and I think he he grew to hate them for it. I think they had conversations about letting her go and I think they all agreed there may come a point. I think they betrayed him. I think they have betrayed Terri.

And it's STILL his call and there is STILL no reason to disqualify him.

 

[Larry Gude]

Kant spel

SAM: ONE of the more brilliant...

 

[Hessian]

You get green from me Sam...I think you articulated your position well...Me on the other hand have baffled Larry (purely unintentional!).

Perhaps my problem lies in the fact that my wife has banned any form of network news on the TV & radio (been that way since my Daughter was born)....Thus I have to rely on Rush, Drudge, Hannity and brief other clips.

Naturally some look at that list and say I am not being "fair & balanced."

However: my take on Terri is the same...if fact I should ask a fundamental question: why is Shaivo so eager to have his wife dead?...and how much veracity is there to the allegations of his neglectful/abusive/callous behavior?

If police were called to a domestic disturbance and learned of some of the conditions that Michael has imposed on Terri...I believe they would have reasonable cause to take her out of the house--and have a judge issue a restraining order to stay away.

Regarding Jeb...I am not really interested in the Republican-Conservative crisis. I am far more interested in decisive/couragous leadership instead of cautious poll taking...clinton-finger-in-the-wind "leadership."

 

[Larry Gude]

Ok...

But it makes a difference in her rights, doesn't it? PVS is fairly clear, and morally I have zero objection to allowing a person to die who isn't "in there" anymore. I don't object to the abrupt termination of a life that is nothing more than a prolongation of endless agony - you shoot someone who is burning to death, to be merciful. These are moral, ethical issues. PVS? Yes - end it. You're uprooting a weed, you're turning off a light - there's no moral dilemma.

Brain-damaged changes things. It means there's a conscious entity in there. ALL of the previous arguments end there, because now, we're dealing with a conscious mind.

Experts will tell you they don't know much of anything about the human brain FOR CERTAIN.

One of Jay's specialists told me that you could do a brain scan of a normal person and say, reasonably "This person is brain dead" and that you could do a scan of a brain dead person and say 'This person is fine".

Maybe not 'brain dead' but certainly in Jay's shape or worse. What we don't know about the brain fills libraries.

I could argue that letting a PVS person go is just as wrong as letting soem lesseer state go and you, nor any expert, could not argue the converse with any more than a best estimate.

Thus we look at Terri as she is.

Plus, she has no rights. She is incapacited and her husband is responsible until such time he relinquishes or is deemed irresponsible.

 

[Tonio]

We're ALL experts on Terri.

Larry, out of everyone on the Forum, I probably know the least about the details of this case.

I'm not necessarily proud of that but I'm not ashamed of it either. Why? Because it's a family situation, which to me means there's an element of privacy. True, Schiavo and the Schindlers have been pursuing their cases in court. But I'm sure they didn't want their private lives to be open to public scrutiny. The media and the politicians have definitely gone too far.

We've got Sam, once of the more brillaint, analytical people I've ever met hanging his hat on a miracle...(And) I think Ken sees a disloyalty here on the part of Schiavo he will not tolerate.

Excellent observations. This case seems to bring out everyone's deep-seated emotional issues. Is the media camped out across the street from the Schiavo and Schindler homes? If so, I wonder if they're tempted to grab the TV cameras and hack them to bits with axes.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47478-2005Feb23.html

I don't know if I agree with Weingarten's answer, but I can't believe one of his readers actually compared this case to eugenics.

Washington, D.C.: Let's kill Shiavo. While we're at it, let's open the door to killing all retarded people. Eventually, we can become like the Nazis and kill all cripples -- after all, they're just a drag on our economy anyway. Hey... let's bring Kevorkian out of jail and have him set up shop again... maybe in Tysons mall. Life -- all life -- is a beautiful thing, Gene.</NITF>
<NITF>Gene Weingarten: No, "all life" is not a beautiful thing. Many lives are very ugly things. And all births are not miracles. And sometimes, death is a welcome alternative to pain and suffering. And if you do not have a brain, you are not alive.

Let's grow up here.

</NITF>

 

[Spoiled]

I’m going to psychology in a few hours I will ask my psyche teacher how conscious you must be to follow a balloon and what like some claimed Terry could.


I personally think congress shouldn’t have done anything about this case; it should have been left to the judicial branch since there was already legislation on it. After 15 years I have great doubts of her being able to make any sort of recovery. I haven’t seen it here, but on other boards people were complaining that starving her was so inhumane and prolonged....
My response

 

[Larry Gude]

Hess...

...first off your wife is Mom of the Year for her rules.

Second, people are running around with Limbaugh and Hannity inspired outrage because what they are presenting is...outrageous.

How can he have beaten her into a coma and nothing was done about it?

He didn't. There is NO evidence of any physical abuse when she was checked in Feb 2000. When the lawsuit was settled against her docs for missing the potasium diagnosis, the company that paid up would have used evidence of physical abuse to avert or mitigate responsibility. It wasn't even mentioned because...it didn't happen.

Does anyone honestly think you would not know or at least be suspicious of your son in law if he were beating your girl? There was no claim or hint of this until, I think, 3 years ago.

As for Limbaugh and Hannity, I feel as though I am watching people I respect and admire walk up on a stage with Bill and Hillary and argue that they have the best marriage of all time.

 

[Larry Gude]

Jeb....

I am far more interested in decisive/couragous leadership instead of cautious poll taking...clinton-finger-in-the-wind "leadership."

Poor Jeb is being asked to foist himself on his own pitard.

Jeb is being asked to commit suicide to prove his courage.

Jeb is being asked to burn himself at the stake; If he lives, he is faithful. If he dies he was faithful and burning yourself is dumb.

Action is not the only barometer of courage.

Restraint often takes more, much more strength.