The Schiavo Case

[ctfish guy]

Well most of us probably keep up wih the news, and we probably have heard about the Schiavo case, How do you all feel about it?

If you haven't then here's and article about it http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/18/sc...brain-damaged/


This link is more upto date its whats going on today http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/arti...16235609990012

I really feel bad for both sides, the man is losing his wife, and the family is losing thir daughter, I just hope one of them notices her pain, both sides are causing pain to her whether you support the husband or family, she is still suffering.......

wait, if thats the case about taking the feeding tube out then i support her

she should keep the feeding tube in

i mean who has the right to take a feeding tube out of someone who didnt do anything wrong

thats like taking all the learning disabled people and killing them cause they arent able to learn what we do as soon as we do

i think that it is descrimination to all of them

and the parents that have L.D. kids are probably really hurt about this

so her husband wants her to die?!?!?! thats wrong he doesnt have control over her

[fishfreek]

I want to remind everyone to respect everyone's opinons with this thread. I know this is a very sensitive subject with many folks and while your free to state your views please refain from trying to push those whom dont share your views into your mindset.

With that said I have to say I am split both ways on this subject. I think there is substantal information on both sides of the argument that we dont know about.

[Jchillin]

With the information that is available, one can only feel sympathy for both sides of this issue.

The husband is in a lose/lose situation, no matter the outcome.

The family cannot want to see their child suffer, hope rings internal in cases like this.

[reefrunner69]

Just tagging along.

[Clown Monarch]

No one mentions the cost involved in keeping her alive - $80k per year as I understand. However callous it may seem discussing the financial ramifications of supporting human life, it's pertinent.

Americans have come to expect that they deserve to live as long as medical science can keep them alive at everyone else's expense. What will happen when we have the ability to support life indefinitely? Will every near-death person have the right to be kept alive on a machine indefinitely in our health-care system where costs continue to grow at 3-5 times the rate of inflation? The portion of non-producers continues to grow and their costs have to be bourne by someone.

This is a situation we will eventually deal with...

[reefrunner69]

All good points clown monarch, we have the technology at this point to keep this woman technically alive for quite along time, but you can't call it living.

What I find most repugnant about this case is this woman, [acronym:b48eef6c1e="in my opinion"]imo[/acronym:b48eef6c1e], should already be dead. We will allow this woman to starve to death, but we must use humane methods of euthanasia for convicted murderers. When the court decided that this wman did not want to be kept alive like this and ordered her feeding tube removed, it should have been an order for an overdose of morphine. The woman is already gone, she is not there anymore, allow her to go in dignity and peace not starving to death.

Admin note, even though I used the death penalty as a comparison in this case, the death penalty is not open for debate in this thread, stick to this debate or the thread will be locked.

[quarryshark]

No one mentions the cost involved in keeping her alive - $80k per year as I understand. However callous it may seem discussing the financial ramifications of supporting human life, it's pertinent.

That may be correct technically but....
You have a family that is willing to accept burden of taking care of this "non brain dead" woman.
The husband is afraid of something, there is no other good reason for his unreasonable resistance. He has turned down many multi million dollar offer to just simply sign over the custody of her. What...is he afraid that she will recover some day? What does he have to hide??

we have the technology at this point to keep this woman technically alive for quite along time, but you can't call it living.

We are not talking about somebody on respiratory or cardiac life support. I have an extensive background on the subject and there is a world of difference.

[dr_girlfriend]

I respect her her husband in how he is standing up for his wifes right to choose her own destiny. I know if I was in her situation, there is no way in **** I would want a feeing tube ever inserted. I see these kinds of people every day, and it really sickens me that family members can be so selfish as to keep their love one "exisiting" so they don't have to let them go.
Its not just as simple as that she has a feeing tube, and thats it. She requires constant blood draws, catheterization (which is not a one time placement) and all the infections and procedures that go along with that.
Shes in a contracted state, which if you can feel pain is agonizing.
I think the point is, is that she told her husband and 2 other people testified that she made comments to the effect that she did not want to live in a vegetative condition. Most 25 year olds don't have a living will or advance directive, and the government is telling them "if you don't write it down, too bad". Since when does the government know what best for anyone, let alone making personal medical decisions?

The husband is afraid of something, there is no other good reason for his unreasonable resistance. He has turned down many multi million dollar offer to just simply sign over the custody of her.

So because he doesn't want his wife to live on in a condition she never wanted, he is guilty of harming her? If your loved one told you not to let them hook you up to anything or put you in a nursing home, just to let them die naturally and the government and their other family members fought you on it, you wouldn't fight back? The fact he's turned down money should prove his point.

[mitche8359]

Throughout the case, in all the articles I've read, all the stories on TV, I have not heard any mention of Living Wills. To me that's the biggest issue that should be stressed. Links to Living Will sites should be included in articles. Information on Living Wills should be offered. The Media is missing the boat once again. It's true that most 25 year olds do not have Living Wills. I'd say that most people don't have Living Wills. Living Will advocates are missing the boat.

All of this could have been avoided if a Living Will was on record.