Let her go....

Published on February 23, 2005 By dharmagrl In Current Events

Teri Schiavo, the Florida woman who has been in what some physicians have described as a 'persistent vegetative state' since an illness 15 years ago has been granted a 48 hour reprieve whilst a Florida court determines whether her husband is 'fit' to be her legal guardian. Link

Her husband has been trying for years to have her feeding tube removed and to let her die. Her parents have been fighting him.

This woman's life has been reduced to nothing. She can't walk, talk, feed herself, dress herself...she appears to smile and react to her family, but no-one can be sure that's what she's doing because she cannot communicate with them. She has the mental capacity of a newborn infant, and the physical strength to match. She's not living, she's simply existing...and her existence has been reduced to a string of court cases, angry words and publicity stunts.

Teri's been trying to die for years. Her husband wanted to let her go, to give her a little dignity...but her folks and even Jeb Bush have fought to keep her alive, albeit artificially. Instead of letting nature take it's course, they've been using artifical measn to keep her alive for 15 years now.

Teri Schiavo is the reason I have advance medical directives attached to my will. I've made my wishes very clear....if, for some reason, fate leads me to end up in a circumstance similar to Teri's, I want to die. I don't want to be trapped in a body that has failed me, having someone change my diaper, feed, bathe and dress me. I don't want to be fed artifically, I don't want to have to have someone wipe drool from my chin....I just want to be left to pass away as nature intended.

It occurred to me as I was reading the MSNBC article...we hear about what Teri's husband wants, and then we hear about what Teri's parent's want...but do we really know what Teri herself would have wanted? If she could speak, what do you think she'd have to say?

Comments (Page 2)

Nebraskawoman

on Feb 25, 2005

Reiki-House try reading the article that I linked to earlier here is is again. Link Here is another quote for you if you dont like that article: "A persistent vegetative state, which sometimes follows a coma, refers to a condition in which individuals have lost cognitive neurological function and awareness of the environment but retain noncognitive function and a perserved sleep-wake cycle. It is sometimes described as when a person is technically alive, but his/her brain is dead. However, that description is not completely accurate. In persistent vegetative state the individual loses the higher cerebral powers of the brain, but the functions of the brainstem, such as respiration (breathing) and circulation, remain relatively intact. Spontaneous movements may occur and the eyes may open in response to external stimuli, but the patient does not speak or obey commands. Patients in a vegetative state may appear somewhat normal. They may occasionally grimace, cry, or laugh." Here is the rest of that article:
Link
Do you really think that someone who was so full of life {from what I've read} would chose to exist in this condition?

dharmagrl

on Feb 25, 2005

no she's not on 24/7 tubes and life support. That's a lie.

Ok, so MSNBC are lying then? If I were you I'd call them and tell them that.

And why no comments about how he's banging on another woman while trying to starve his wife to death.

The fact that you seem to be ignoring is that she's been like this for 15 years. if he had started this affair, or as you so succinctly put it 'banging' another woman 15 DAYS after her illness then I could see why you'd be upset about it. 15 years is a long, long time.....and I don't blame him at all for moving on with his life. If I were in Teri Schiavo's condition I wouldn't blame my husband for getting on with his life either.
As for the monetary gain that everyone's got their knickers in a twist over...that's pretty much been depleted, thanks to legal fees and hospital bills.
NW, thanks for pointing out that article again!

bakerstreet

on Feb 25, 2005

again, nebraskawoman, if she is really in a vegetative state, do you think she is "suffering" in this state? Suffering like vegetables suffer?

If you are right, then there's no harm leaving the parents with their daughter. If you are wrong, then you don't have the right to choose to take the life of someone who might otherwise exist in there.

Nebraskawoman

on Feb 25, 2005

BakerStreet: Your right if she is not suffering then maybe there is no point in leaving her the way she is. I'm looking at this whole situation as what would I want if I was Terri. I personally would not want my body existing in the way she is. If you are religious then think of it this way. Her spirit/soul {whatever word you prefer} is stuck in that shell that is laying in that bed. The only way that her spirit can be put to rest is to let her go. By postponing this you are postponing her going to heaven. I personally think that after 15 years her spirit needs to be put to rest. There is nothing left for her here. Both sides are thinking only of themselves and not of what she might want. I enjoy life and I dont ever want to be remembered as a poor sick woman who is laying in a hospital bed without the ability to communicate to others or the ability to do anything. If it was you what would you want BakerStreet? Would you want your family to spend 15+ years watching your body waste away, spending thousands upon thousands of dollars on medical and legal bills? I wouldn't.
{You are welcome, dharma. There are more articles out there that are just as good. If you google her name.}

bakerstreet

on Feb 25, 2005

"Your right if she is not suffering then maybe there is no point in leaving her the way she is."

You misunderstand. If she is a "vegetable", with no awareness, just mechanical function, then there is no "she" there to suffer. If you say she is "brain dead", then why should anyone be concerned if her parents want to keep her alive, as long as the bills are paid?

The husband has moved on, moved in with another woman, and had kids. The parents aren't burdened by caring for their daughter. The husband doesn't visit or have any responsibility whatsoever.

So, if she is what her husband and those who agree with him says she is, then she can't be "suffering", and she can't be mourning the state she is in.

"If it was you what would you want BakerStreet? Would you want your family to spend 15+ years watching your body waste away, spending thousands upon thousands of dollars on medical and legal bills? I wouldn't."

What "she" would want is moot, because there is no longer any "she" if she truly resides in a "brain dead", vegetative state. To me, it wouldn't matter what they did with me, since I would no longer be "me", any more than my corpse is "me".

I have a feeling when all is said and done there will be a lot to learn about this guy, and why he has spent so much time and resources trying to get them to stop feeding her.

just a thought

on Feb 27, 2005

I've thought quite a bit about this. I understand he feels that she is never coming back and that she is dead...her body is being kept alive against all odds. If she can think and feels trapped or pain, it sucks for her becaue they can keep her heart beating for years. She still has a long time to exist on this plane. So I sypmathized with him and his wish to take her of the feeding tube.

Of course, I didn't think of HOW she was going to die. How long will it take for her to starve to death? Yikes. That does seem a bit harsh and I understand the parents' reluctance to let the removal take place.

So if this is purely a selfish thing, he doesnt' want to be responsible for her and her parents disagree, then he should be given a divorce and they should be responsible for her and pay for her care.

This hasn't happened, so I must conclude that he honestly wants to "free" her from the shell of a body. Too bad there isn't a gentler way of doing it....starvation seems harsh.

just a thought

on Feb 27, 2005

bakerstreet

on Feb 27, 2005

"Starve to death" is kind of misleading, I guess. She will more likely "thirst" to death, since I assume they'd cut off liquids, too. Granted, it won't take nearly as long. I think the longest you can go with zero liquids is like 3 or 4 days.

Still, not any way you want to go if you look into the effects of it. This is one of those times the pro-Euthanasia folks could step up and make a point. But, then, we'd have to be honest and say we are killing her, instead of being silly and saying we are "letting her die".

In essence, what is being done to her could be done to anyone that can't feed or care for themselves. The level of "vegetation" is completely arbitrary, I think. There are peopel who are severely mentally retarded that could be "cut off" according to this standard, imho.

TaBoo Tenente

on Feb 27, 2005

bakers question:

here's a question. If she isn't "aware", if she is basically a vegetable on aut-pilot, what exactly is harmed by leaving her as she is?

my previous response, made prior to the question:

a person can be held in a state that resembles life for a long time. a person can exist in a state of constant pain for a long time, too, without life support, and without any higher cognitive functions. without any consciousness, a person can "live" for many years in pain, never having any awareness of existence

after re-reading, i realize this was a bit vague and could use some filling out.

nerve endings receive stimuli that will be interpreted if the path to the central nervous system (and the central nervous system itself) is intact. a chemical reaction beginning at the nerve ending and proceeding to the central nervous system (or, occasionally, the spinal cord) returns to the source and also seeks out any other related location. the peptide producers and receptors learn the reaction once it happens, and if the reaction is triggered on a regular basis, then the system becomes deeply ingrained not only in the instinctual nervous system reaction, but also in the producers and receptors of the proteins themselves.

suppose someone makes a habit of sticking a hand into the flame of a blowtorch while enjoying a favorite supper. the chemical processees supporting each response will overlap, because the body's chemical climate will be the same. if this someone does this long enough, then any enjoyment of food will inspire the production of proteins made to respond to an emergency pain situation.

it's like depression--or drugs for that matter. your body's response to the environment is a result of a learned chemical climate. your body gets used to producing certain feelings.

one would like to think that as rational, conscious beings, we have the ability to affect that climate. we can change our lives and our perspectives and our environments if we can identify unproductive, addictive climates that our body establishes.

so this is what i mean, when i say without any conscious existence, without any cognitive functions, a person can remain "alive" for a long time, while only registering kneejerk reactions. therefore:

(baker:)

If she isn't "aware" on any human level, then the whole arguement of "sparing her pain", etc., seems to fall flat,

unfortunately isnt true. traumatic experiences are stored elsewhere than conscious awareness, and this is what makes them so difficult to root out.

i strongly believe euthanasia to be an appropriate response to certain conditions. i understand very well that g-tube feeding is NOT the same as life support. and i also agree that simply removing this g-tube is a ridiculous pass at ending this woman's pain. unfortunately, the best methods are illegal.

i also want to stress that i dont have the answers here--who does? the feverish response i made to reiki rose from a need to point out that his (her?) absolutist position was grossly unfair and uninformed . . . and to annhilate the obscene, illogical analogy drawn between mr. schiavo and nazi instigators.

i will not quote the final summation made by reiki, but i have to assume that rational beings can understand the difference between passionate response and blathering tripe.

the simple fact is that this woman cannot speak for herself and she does not have a living will. let's suppose that no one can know whats going on inside her head. there MUST be some point when, if a decision has already been made to nourish and maintain her existence, the rest of us must get together and make our best judgment . . . and in order to do that we need our best understanding of her chemical reality and, once we understand that reality to the best of our abilities, then with an open mind, with empathy, and without any selfish traps in our hearts, we need to try to put ourselves in her position.

tbt

bakerstreet

on Feb 27, 2005

" . . . and in order to do that we need our best understanding of her chemical reality and, once we understand that reality to the best of our abilities, then with an open mind, with empathy, and without any selfish traps in our hearts, we need to try to put ourselves in her position.
"

You are overlooking the fact that at this point, there is no SHE. According to your own arguements she is just a step or two away from brain death. Given that, I don't see how you guys, according to your own standards, can keep saying "her position" or "Teri's been trying to die for years. ".

You are defeating your own arguements. If she is at the state that you guys seem to be making her out to be, then there is simply no SHE there. There is no cognitive conciousness according to you. How then, can you make this an issue of "humane" death or stopping her suffering?

You can't. This is a husband that for some reason, some concrete reason, refuses to get a divorce, move on, and leave her parents in peace. He has moved in with another woman, had kids, but that legal standard of marriage, not moral standard, not religious principle, that LEGAL standard is vastly important.

This doesn't need to go beyond "who has the right to decide" to me. This man isn't her husband, and hasn't been for years. He doesn't visit her, he doesn't give her any daily care, he doesn't offer any decision making for anything but stopping her feeding.

I defy you to tell me this is "logical". If she is existing in the state you claim that she is, then all this humane "put her out of her misery" stuff falls flat.

I'm sorry, T.T, I can't put myself in her position, because according to you there is no longer any "her". Just parents who care for her, and have faith that there are possibilities, and a husband whose only interest in her is her LEGAL life/death status. Read what you like from it.

bakerstreet

on Feb 27, 2005

It seems to me that if she needs someone to uphold her right to a dignified death, she also needs someone to legally represent her plight regarding spousal abandonment.

The government laughs off marraiges like this in terms of immigration. If I were to "marry" a woman coming into the US, only for her to wander off and have two kids with someone else and reside with them, they'd call the marriage a sham and remove the legal rights granted by it.

Why then does this guy get to play house elsewhere and still pretend to be a "husband" for the the biggest decision of all?

Gideon MacLeish

on Mar 02, 2005

What's the difference between a food tube and a nurse with a spoon?

I have said this before, and I'll say it again. If clear, cohesive communication abilities and ability to feed onesself are qualifications for being "alive", there is nothing to keep us from extending abortion well into the first year postpartum. We have to be VERY careful how we look at things here.

Gideon MacLeish

on Mar 02, 2005

Ok, so MSNBC are lying then? If I were you I'd call them and tell them that.

Frankly, yes, the media reports that say she is on life support ARE lying. She is on a feeding tube, that is it. The media has exaggerated because their is a strong pervasive belief among the media in the "right to die" (a right, by the way, which I SUPPORT, but on the terms that it be the will of the individual AND that it not be done in an inhumane fashion, such as starving to death for up to 2 weeks).

bakerstreet

on Mar 02, 2005

If we are going to base such decisions on how much help someone needs to live, Christopher Reeve wouldn't have been "viable" either. If we are basing it on mental "life", then untold numbers of of those residing in catatonic states and comas are fair game.

All this decision is based upon is the husband's belief that she is somehow living in a state of "wrongness". She isn't "suffering" in any apparent way, she isn't "dead", given her body doesn't need life support. He just has some motive for wanting her to pass away.

Some feel it is because he cares about her. I think someone who cared for her would have either devoted themselves to her care in hopes that she would recover, or would have accepted her loss, gotten a divorce and moved on. He's moved on, had kids with another woman, but for some reason he is fixated on remaining involved with the decisions.

There's something about this legal definition of "life" and "marriage" that is integral to this legal battle. I don't think it takes much imagination to put 2 and 2 together.

Sheila

on Mar 10, 2005

I disagree with you. We don't know what Teri wants so because of this she should be allowed to live. Pulling her feeding tube is a terrible death, we treat murderers, war criminals, terrorists better than this. Teri's husband has a conflict of interest so I don't trust him, he needs to surrender his rights to her and I think he would have done this years ago if it weren't for the money he stands to gain after she has died.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!