Woman in Florida left to die in hospital

[Dis]

well I just heard on the news that she cannot feel pain in that state.

though I wonder how they know that.

[The Mad Monk]

Probably the same way they "know" that fish can't feel pain when you hook them.

[David Floyd]

How can one exercise the right to die more than once? All other rights have ongoing benefits, be they life, liberty, property or security of the person.

Why do you think that one has to exercise a right more than once, or even AT ALL, in order to possess it? I have the right to own a house, but if I choose not to own a house, am I giving up that right, or am I simply choosing not to exercise it?

In any case, "the right to die" is really just an extension of the right to life, in the sense that the right to life simply means that your life is your own.

This woman expressed a desire to die - or at least a desire not to be preserved in this kind of state - so she should be allowed to do so. End of story.

Ben, I just don't understand why you would care if someone decides to end their own life. It just doesn't affect you or hurt you in any way.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Thirty years ago there was a woman named Karen Ann Quilin. Karen made the mistake of taking barbituates and booze together, and consequently melted her brain. She was effectively brain dead. For ten years, her parents fought in the courts, people marched, gathered peitions, argued in legislatures, etc. We won that fight.

Karen Ann Quinlan was being kept on life support (a ventilator). The parents won the case to allow her to be removed from the artificial life-support. As it turns out, she started breathing on her own when they pulled the plug and she lived for 10 years more (with a feeding and hydration tube).

Personally, I think there is a difference between removing artificial life support and removing food. Food is not (abnormal) medical treatment. However, the fundamental question remains whether one spouse (or other family member) should be allowed to kill the other spouse (or other family member) under specific circumstances. If you accept that such actions should be legal then the best alternative is to euthanize the spouse humanely rather than allow them to die from dehydration. It's not hard to imagine the uproar if we began killing prisoners on death row in this way.

The ironic point about this case is that it is the republicans who are advocating government interference in private matters and the democrats who are *****ing about it.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by SpencerH
The ironic point about this case is that it is the republicans who are advocating government interference in private matters and the democrats who are *****ing about it.

There's nothing ironic about it. When it comes to personal matters, it's generally the Republicans that want to interfere. The Dem's just interfere with your business.

[Ben Kenobi]

David Floyd:

Why do you think that one has to exercise a right more than once, or even AT ALL, in order to possess it? I have the right to own a house, but if I choose not to own a house, am I giving up that right, or am I simply choosing not to exercise it?

Not quite my point.

All rights provide ongoing benefits to the person when exercised. This so-called right to die does not, and therefore to call this a 'right' is not proper terminology.

As for this situation here, I am profoundly disturbed that we do not really know what Terri wants, yet the courts initially ruled that her life ought to end.

Now, for your second point, why do I care about suicide? We cannot prevent people from ending their lives, but we ought to discourage this because these people need help. If they are suffering from pain, there are things we can do for them. If they are depressed, we ought to help them with counselling.

We do not give them a gun, if they say they want to kill themselves.

I'm not even going to argue from a religious perspective. Kant would say such actions are immoral because they cannot be universalised.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

There's nothing ironic about it. When it comes to personal matters, it's generally the Republicans that want to interfere. The Dem's just interfere with your business.

No, the democrats interfere with our lives in many more tangible ways than the republicans.

[Ben Kenobi]

So much for reconciliation!

By Sarah Foster
C 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

Attorney Patricia Anderson's greatest fear was realized yesterday when she learned that Michael Schiavo had removed his wife Terri Schindler-Schiavo from Morton Plant Hospital in Clearwater, Fla., where she was taken to have her feeding tube reinstalled, and returned clandestinely to the Woodside Facility of the Hospice of the Florida Sun Coast in Pinellas Park where she has been a patient for over three years.

Just hours earlier, Anderson - who has represented Robert and Mary Schindler in their decade-long legal battle with their son-in-law - told WorldNetDaily she was intensely concerned that Schiavo would remove
Terri from the hospital before her condition was medically stabilized and she was rehydrated, in accordance with Florida Gov. Jeb Bush's executive order.

This would be completely at odds with the purpose of Tuesday's special legislation by the Florida legislature that empowered Gov. Jeb Bush to order Schiavo's feeding tube reinserted, and halted the court-ordered
death of the 39-year-old brain-damaged woman, whose husband had long sought to end her life.

But Schiavo had done that several times in the past, most recently in August when Terri was shuttled back and forth on three separate occasions during bouts with pneumonia and other medical problems. Each
time she was kept at Morton Plant only a few days and returned to the hospice in a much-weakened state.

"I don't have any doubt that she should be in intensive care at the hospital," said Anderson. "But the fact is, Michael's her guardian and if he withdraws his consent for them to treat her there's nothing they can do. Their hands are tied. This tells you a lot about him."

Anderson said she felt that the hospital would have preferred to keep her before releasing her prematurely, but Schiavo is the one who must consent to treatment.

"If he revokes the consent and he is her legal guardian, their hands are tied," she explained. "They cannot continue to treat her without his consent. That is why the appointment of a guardian ad litem is so very crucial," she added.

Report from the frontlines

Anderson said she saw Terri was being tube-fed when she was there, but there is no IV line supplying hydration, though she may have had sufficient fluid during the 24 hours she was at Morton Plant.

Both parents and brother Bobby were with her, and she was responsive, though sleepy.

"That is why we need a guardian ad litem," she added. "That is what Terri's Bill is about. We've got to have a guardian ad litem to put a stop to that kind of hijinks, because [Michael's] primary objective is to kill her."

Schiavo very nearly succeeded in his five-year quest to end his wife's life by court-approved starvation. With only a few hours remaining before she slipped beyond the point where she could be saved, Florida lawmakers Tuesday delivered to the governor legislation empowering him to order Schiavo's feeding tube reinserted, and Bush signed the life-saving law as well as an implementing executive order.

"Terri's Bill" specifically directs the chief judge, David Demers of the 6th Judicial Circuit Court, to appoint a guardian ad litem to represent Terri "upon issuance of a stay," but he has not yet done so - a matter that Anderson views as a matter of urgency.

"Terri will be out of danger only when Michael is no longer her guardian and no longer has access to her," she said bluntly.

Bay 9 News TV reports Demers has directed the attorneys of both Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers to reach agreement on who should serve as guardian ad litem within five days. The guardian would be Terri's
advocate in legal proceedings, but, the report said, Michael Schiavo would remain the decision-maker.

Demers says he will appoint Dr. Jay Wolfson, a professor of health and law at Stetson University, as the guardian ad litem if the parties cannot reach agreement.

Crowds of demonstrators cheered wildly as Terri was transferred by ambulance from Woodside Hospice to Morton Plant Hospital, about 25 miles away, whereupon her feeding tube was reinserted and rehydration begun
after her six days ordeal of judge-ordered starvation.

Family locked out

No sooner was his wife admitted to Morton Plant than Schiavo sent an order directing the hospital to bar Terri's parents and siblings from visiting her.

The Schindlers were not informed of Schiavo's action, and only learned of it late that evening from Terri's brother who had driven to the hospital to visit his sister and was escorted from the premises by an armed security guard. Bobby Schindler, 38, told WorldNetDaily he was told by the administrator on duty that Schiavo had left instructions that "no family members, not anybody is to visit Terri," and that they were to be given no information about her medical condition. Schindler was too exhausted by worry over the fate of his sister and the events of the past seven days to express anger. But he said he's not surprised by this recent action by Schiavo.

"Michael's been doing this kind of thing for almost as long as he's been guardian of my sister," he exclaimed. "It's going on for over a decade and it continues. Even after the governor stepped in and did what he did today, [Schiavo] continues to use his guardianship power as a weapon against our family and Terri."

It's one of many times her husband has ordered Terri isolated fromfamily and those close to her. In mid-August he barred a Roman Catholic priest from visiting her at Morton Plant Hospital where she was taken
due to a sudden medical crisis.

Schiavo said his action was prompted by a late-evening visit by Terri's spiritual adviser, Monsignor Thaddeus Malanowski, a former Army chaplain, who had been asked by her father to drop by the hospital to see how she was faring.

Even though the monsignor was on a list of court-approved visitors and regularly visited her at the hospice with her parents, Schiavo was outraged when he heard about it, regarding it as a willful violation of a policy he had established prohibiting callers unless accompanied either by himself or a family member.

Schiavo's attorney Deborah Bushnell told orldNetDaily that her client was concerned about Malanowski's "integrity" and felt the 81-year-old priest was not "the kind of person that he wanted visiting Terri or that he felt comfortable visiting Terri." Eventually he relented slightly, and the monsignor was allowed to resume his visits subject to week-to-week approval by Schiavo.

Last Wednesday, the day Terri's feeding tube was removed, Schiavo's attorneys ordered family members barred from being alone with Terri at the hospice following Robert Schindler's release to the media of a
videotape distributed in evidence that the woman is not in a "persistent vegetative state" as Schiavo's advocates claim.

Schindler admitted the tape was made surreptitiously, in violation of a court order by probate Judge George Greer, of the Pinellas-County Circuit Court. The video, which shows Terri alert and laughing and trying to speak, further indicates attempts at rehabilatative therapy, also banned by the courts.

Following the video's release, her family was told they were barred fromvisiting the dying woman "unless [Schiavo] or his representative is present."

In at least one instance, the "representative" that accompanied Robert and Mary Schindler to the bedside of their daughter was none other than the mother of Schiavo's mistress, Jodi Centonze, with whom he has been living for a number of years. He and Centonze have a 1-year-old daughter and are expecting a second child.

As WorldNetDaily reported, the Schindlers had been fighting their son-in-law for 10 years over the lack of care and therapy Schiavo as her guardian provided for their daughter, who suffered massive brain damage when she collapsed at her home 13 years ago under mysterious circumstances at the age of 26.

The ongoing dispute escalated five years ago when Schiavo petitioned the court for permission to end his wife's life by removing her feeding tube, insisting she is in a "persistent vegetative state" and had told him years before she would not want to be maintained "by tubes" and "artificial means" Although Terri breathes on her own and maintains her own blood pressure, she requires a simple tube into her abdomen to her stomach for nourishment and hydration.

The Schindlers fought tenaciously to keep their daughter and the case alive in the courts, but were basically blocked at every turn, in particular by Judge George Greer, who has had charge of the case almost
from the beginning. When the seven-member Florida Supreme Court in August turned down a petition to review the case, the way was clear for Schiavo to starve his wife to death.

On Sept. 17, Greer scheduled Oct. 15 as the day Terri's feeding tube would be removed. At the same time, in a separate ruling, he denied rehabilitation and speech therapy for the disabled woman.

[Jules]

:sigh:

[Q Classic]

does he realize he's not doing himself any favors by doing this?

[David Floyd]

BK,

All rights provide ongoing benefits to the person when exercised. This so-called right to die does not, and therefore to call this a 'right' is not proper terminology.

OK, so the exercise of a right must bring a benefit to the person exercising the right, in order for the right to exist?

Well, then, I have the right to call you a big doody-head. However, this doesn't benefit me, so do I not have the right to free speech?

Even if you insist that a right must provide a benefit, then I would argue that the benefit lies in the mere existence of the right, and the ability of one to exercise the right, not in the outcome.

In this specific case, though, and in right-to-die cases in general, the benefit is clear: A person wants to die, and they exercise their own moral authority over their life to fulfill their wish.

As for this situation here, I am profoundly disturbed that we do not really know what Terri wants, yet the courts initially ruled that her life ought to end.

OK, so we can't trust her husband to accurately convey her wishes, but it's OK for us trust him with her medical care?

Put another way, if the government is simply allowed to say that her wish is irrelevant simply because they never heard it, why should her husband be forced to shoulder the burden of thousands of dollars of medical care that neither he nor his wife wants?

Now, for your second point, why do I care about suicide? We cannot prevent people from ending their lives, but we ought to discourage this because these people need help.

Not always. Let's make a distinction between the physically ill, and the mentally ill. In the first case, a terminally ill patient in a lot of pain may legitimately feel that it is better for them, and for their family, that they just die. In the latter case, it isn't nearly as clear cut, but even in the case of the mentally ill, I don't think the government should get a say - care for the mentally ill should be up to the family of the mentally ill, and any charity that wishes to assist.

If they are suffering from pain, there are things we can do for them. If they are depressed, we ought to help them with counselling.

Why would I have an obligation to force counseling on someone who doesn't want it, or even to pay for counseling for someone who does want it but can't afford it?

We do not give them a gun, if they say they want to kill themselves.

Certainly not, but we shouldn't take away the gun, either.

I'm not even going to argue from a religious perspective. Kant would say such actions are immoral because they cannot be universalised.

Why should I care what Kant says? I'm interested in what is right and wrong, not in Kant's flawed opinions.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by SpencerH
No, the democrats interfere with our lives in many more tangible ways than the republicans.

Oh, how? By outlawing gay sex? Oh, wait, that's the Republicans. By instituting waiting periods on marriage? Oh, no, Repugs again. Oh, I know, the Democrats try and shove their religion down our throats . . . no, wait, I'll get one. The Demos deny us access to medical marijuan . . . oops, sorry. Well, surely the Democrats are leading the crusade against pornography . . . hmmmm, wrong again. I know, the Democrats won't let people on welfare go to college . . . no, wait. The Democrats oppose abortion? No, what about the right to die? Hmmmm

Could you help me out?

[chequita guevara]

What should we do to public oficials who knowingly violate the Constitution, as Jeb Bush has (he has admitted that he knows they are on shaky legal ground)?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
does he realize he's not doing himself any favors by doing this?

Why should he care? He's not competing in a populatity contest. BTW, 3 out of 5 of my fellow Floridians disagree with the legislature and the governor. So this isn't gonna hurt him.

[Ben Kenobi]

David Floyd:

(Hey, BF is not far from DF)

OK, so the exercise of a right must bring a benefit to the person exercising the right, in order for the right to exist?

Yes. That seems clear to me. WIth the qualifier "ongoing."

Well, then, I have the right to call you a big doody-head. However, this doesn't benefit me, so do I not have the right to free speech?

Sure you benefit. Freedom of Speech means that I do not have the right if I were in a position of authority to chop off your head for expressing your opinion. Speaking your mind freely is an ongoing benefit of freedom of speech.

Even if you insist that a right must provide a benefit, then I would argue that the benefit lies in the mere existence of the right, and the ability of one to exercise the right, not in the outcome.

I'm looking at the definition of a right. What makes something a right, like liberty, life, speech, and religion? One of the common qualities shared by all of these rights is the ongoing benefits provided when exercised. Therefore, the right to die does not stack up nor qualify as a right like the others.

In this specific case, though, and in right-to-die cases in general, the benefit is clear: A person wants to die, and they exercise their own moral authority over their life to fulfill their wish.

Ongoing benefit. Read my definition again.

OK, so we can't trust her husband to accurately convey her wishes, but it's OK for us trust him with her medical care?

No. If he proves untrustworthy in one, he ought not to be trusted with the other.

forced to shoulder the burden of thousands of dollars of medical care that neither he nor his wife wants?

Terri has been well provided for in a fund, so I doubt Michael Schiavo has had to use a red cent of his money in order to care for Terri.

In the first case, a terminally ill patient in a lot of pain may legitimately feel that it is better for them, and for their family, that they just die.

Ah, but that is what we are debating, is it possible for one to legitimately feel it is better? I would say that it is evidence that the person suffers not that he or she ought to end their life.

Why would suicide be the right option for anyone? Why make this distinction between physical and mental suffering?

I don't think the government should get a say - care for the mentally ill should be up to the family of the mentally ill, and any charity that wishes to assist.

Tough. I believe people have the duty to care for others, and this includes those who are suffering either from physical or mental distress. If they want to kill themselves, we have a duty to help them see otherwise.

Why would I have an obligation to force counseling on someone who doesn't want it, or even to pay for counseling for someone who does want it but can't afford it?

You are a libertarian, and again fall into the trap of not caring for others. I would gladly pay money if it meant someone would not kill themselves. This treatment ought not to be forced, but encouraged.

Certainly not, but we shouldn't take away the gun, either.

Confusing the points here. I would not advocate taking away someone's gun unless there was substantial cause to believe that the person planned to kill himself with the gun.

Why should I care what Kant says? I'm interested in what is right and wrong, not in Kant's flawed opinions.

So why is Kant wrong?

[David Floyd]

Yes. That seems clear to me. WIth the qualifier "ongoing."

I think our view of rights, then, fundamentally differs. To me, the benefit brought about by exercising a right is irrelevant - it's really none of anyone's business (unless of course I am hurting someone). If I want to, say, take a bath in Coca-Cola, I'm free to do so, even though that clearly provides no "long term ongoing benefit".

Sure you benefit. Freedom of Speech means that I do not have the right if I were in a position of authority to chop off your head for expressing your opinion. Speaking your mind freely is an ongoing benefit of freedom of speech.

That doesn't make any sense. You first said that a right must provide an ongoing benefit to me. I pointed out that insulting you doesn't benefit me, and you responded that the benefit is that my freedom of speech isn't infringed.

So great, then we agree! Surely you'll also concede, then, that the benefit provided by the "right to die" is simply that my right to die isn't infringed.

I'm looking at the definition of a right. What makes something a right, like liberty, life, speech, and religion? One of the common qualities shared by all of these rights is the ongoing benefits provided when exercised. Therefore, the right to die does not stack up nor qualify as a right like the others.

I'm pretty sure your own argument has refuted your own argument, but I'll bring up another issue.

You mentioned the "right to life". Now, do you think that means simply "the right to be alive", or does it mean "the right to your own life"? You see, there's a fundamental difference. If all it means is "the right to be alive", then the only limitation on our behavior is that we can't kill each other. Might makes right would be the highest law, with the minor caveat that the mighty still can't commit murder. Now, you might claim that the right to liberty still prevents this, but does it? Where would the right to liberty come from? Certainly not out of a vaccuum? No, the right to liberty is simply derived from the right to life, as is property and everything else. An assault on liberty or property, then, is also an assault on your life, because the REAL meaning of the "right to life" is "the right to your own life".

And this definition, which makes far more sense that the one you seem to be using, easily extends to the right to ending your own life.

Ongoing benefit. Read my definition again.

It's a flawed definition, but in that case, the ongoing benefit is that (assuming they are Christian) they get to enter heaven that much earlier

No. If he proves untrustworthy in one, he ought not to be trusted with the other.

Interesting. My original post on this thread was something along the lines of "fine, if her parents don't want to respect her wishes, then let them, not Michael, be responsible for her". Sounds like you are agreeing with me yet again, however, if she ever wakes up, I don't imagine she would be too pleased with her parents.

Terri has been well provided for in a fund, so I doubt Michael Schiavo has had to use a red cent of his money in order to care for Terri.

Well this brings up another interesting point. What incentive has Michael to lie about Terri's wishes? If he isn't being financially burdened by keeping her alive, why should he not want to keep her alive? If he wants to disassociate himself, he can always just get a divorce, so that argument won't work.

No, maybe he REALLY IS trying to carry out the wishes of the woman he loves - because other answers really don't make much sense given the financial situation.

Ah, but that is what we are debating, is it possible for one to legitimately feel it is better? I would say that it is evidence that the person suffers not that he or she ought to end their life.

Why would suicide be the right option for anyone? Why make this distinction between physical and mental suffering?

Remember on 9/11, when the people were jumping out of the windows on the top of the WTC? They were trading a quick death for a painful death, right?

Do you condemn these actions, too? They are certainly not any different from a terminally ill patient, in a great deal of pain, deciding just to die quietly by their own hand.

Tough. I believe people have the duty to care for others, and this includes those who are suffering either from physical or mental distress. If they want to kill themselves, we have a duty to help them see otherwise.

Really? And from where do you derive these duties?

It's also worth point out that these so-called duties conflict with the rights to liberty and property, and thus, by extension, conflict with the right to life. What this means, then, is that you are saying that our duty to others is something that is more important than our own freedom. Do you make that claim?

You are a libertarian, and again fall into the trap of not caring for others.

That's not true at all.

I would gladly pay money if it meant someone would not kill themselves. This treatment ought not to be forced, but encouraged.

But you claimed a duty to do so, and a duty implies force, rather than encouragement. So which is it? Do you think that we SHOULD help these people, or do you think that some duty says that we MUST help these people?

Confusing the points here. I would not advocate taking away someone's gun unless there was substantial cause to believe that the person planned to kill himself with the gun.

OK, so you believe in taking away the person's gun. A simple "yes" would have sufficed.