Terri Shivo

Piel · Mar 27, 2005

DG being passionate about this subject is totally appropriate. It makes a lot of the other stuff that we go back and forth about on this board seem rather silly, doesn't it? I think the bottom line is this, are we prolonging life or prolonging death? From personal experience I am learning that what is an acceptable quality of life for one person may not be acceptable for someone else. It even changes for an individual as their situation changes. All we can do is plan the best we can and pray that our most current wishes are down in writing.

swannanoa54 · Mar 27, 2005

I'm in total agreement, Piel. We all must take the time to make certain our wishes are known not only to our family members, but to our doctors as well. I've heard and read that you should provide your doctor (and other interested parties) with a copy of your wishes (living will, whatever), so that this doesn't happen.

On this Easter Sunday, our entire family will be here. As maudlin as it sounds, this will be discussed just so we are all sure. I love my DIL as if she were my own daughter, but I'd hate to have something like this happen to my son and get in a fight about it. But since all of us have walked through this, we know what we will do. I wish you all the best.

sk8rmom · Mar 28, 2005

Thank you, Realistic51, for your cyberhugs.

It's been a number of years since this crisis hit my family, but never a week goes by without my thinking of it, and so your thoughts are very much appreciated.

CsarinaAnya...one thing I must say. My mom was diagnosed as brain dead. And yet, after much heart-wrenching thought, once her intravenous and feeding tubes were removed, it took close to 2 weeks for her body to succumb. I'm not sure what the rules are in the US, but here in Canada, the respirator was to be kept intact.

Granted, with medical advancements happening every day, I'm not necessarily up on every new improvement. So I suppose the family needs to feel a huge amount of confidence in the medical team involved. And if they say that recovery is a non-possiblity, then decisions need to be made with the patient's best interest in mind. Even if it's a very difficult decision. No one wants to see a loved one in this position.

gezando · Mar 28, 2005

Terri has an intact brain stem, and is breathing on her own, her cortex is damaged therefore on MRI or scan the space that should be occpied by the cerebral cortex is filled by enlarged ventricles

The medical argumet of starving Teri to death were:
1. qualifty of life issue
2. Draining medical $$$
4. massive insult to cerebral cortex, since neurons can not regenerate, therefore the cortex is gone, there is no hope of regaining any function.

Hypothetically if someone has a somewhat damaged brainstem, and needs a respirator to live, and this pt also has some cortex injury resulting in aphasia both receptive and expressive, and some additional brain injury resulting in a right sided hemiplegic (assuming this person is right handed). In summary this person is unable to communicate whether he or she wants the respirator pulled. Assuming on MRI the cerebral cortex is still there.
Are you supporting pulling the respirator?

Grgranny · Mar 28, 2005

Gezando, you seem to be very informed. I was wondering if you might be involved in the medical field? Just wondering.

jenaj · Mar 30, 2005

gezando said:
Terri has an intact brain stem, and is breathing on her own, her cortex is damaged therefore on MRI or scan the space that should be occpied by the cerebral cortex is filled by enlarged ventricles

The medical argumet of starving Teri to death were:
1. qualifty of life issue
2. Draining medical $$$
4. massive insult to cerebral cortex, since neurons can not regenerate, therefore the cortex is gone, there is no hope of regaining any function.

Interesting, but none of those reasons are the one the courts used to justify ending Terri's life. The courts have ruled that there was clear and convincing evidence that Terri wanted the feeding tube removed, based on the hearsay testimony of her legal husband. This kind of evidence would not have been admissible in the absence of a will in a distribution of her property, but it is enough, in Florida, to end her life. Sad.

jenaj · Mar 30, 2005

And one more thing, just to be clear: the feeding tube was not disconnected simply because her husband as legal guardian requested it. It was disconnected because he testified, seven years after she suffered her brain injury, that she had at some point stated that she wouldn't want to be kept alive if she were comatose or brain-injured. This is hearsay that would not normally be admissible in court proceedings, yet it is the reason the judge ruled her life should be ended.

jenaj · Mar 30, 2005

elingrace4eva said:
As far as I'm concerned, you choose your husband and you can't choose your parents. When she chose to marry him and remain married to him, she was giving him the right to decide her fate if it were ever to come to this. That's my moral stand on it.

Legall, the whole issue was decided in Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health in 1990. In the absence of a living will, parents do not have the right to decide the fate of their child. A marriage liscense qualifies as a living will in the case of a brain damaged spouse.

This is not what the Court in Cruzan said. In that case, the parents wanted to remove the feeding tube and the hospital opposed it. No husband was involved. The courts ruled that no one--not parents, not husband, not a legal guardian-- had the right to remove the feeding tube. Rather, the patient's wishes were what mattered.

dorispulaski · Mar 30, 2005

her cortex is damaged therefore on MRI or scan the space that should be occpied by the cerebral cortex is filled by enlarged ventricles

Terri can't have an MRI because she had electrodes placed in her brain as part of an experimental therapy. Large magnetic fields and metals are not a winning combination.

Doggygirl · Mar 30, 2005

I continue to feel so sad for this whole family. Even though Mr. Doggy and I have a living trust which covers all these types of medical bases, our families (even the two family members who are designated as trustees if we are both gone) have not, and will not be privvy to the detailed trust document until that time comes.

But I did take the time this past weekend to explain to my mother what our trust entails in terms of my own wishes should a situation like this ever happen to me. I figured it would be easier for my parents to know now, while I'm healthy, what my wishes entail. I think it will be less upsetting down the road if something bad happens.

I know at least one other poster here mentioned they were going to talk about this with family over the weekend. I hope anyone who is having these types of family discussions, and making out living wills is getting through it peacefully.

Whatever the outcome, I hope the madness ends soon for Terri's family.

DG

Piel · Mar 30, 2005

I found it interesting that on last nights news report from the hospice Mr. Schiavo's representative said (not an exact quote) that the lights were dimmed in the room, there were fresh flowers, Terry had her favorite stuffed animal, they were playing "Claire d Lune", she had moisturizer on her lips and was comfortable and in no pain. Also that she hadn't had tp receive any Tylenol and for the past 15 years has had to take Tylenol for pain. Now are all of these comfort measures for Terry or window dressing for the family and staff? I don't understand what Mr. Schiavo's problem with her receiving Holy Communion as often as her priest wants to administer it? Some Catholics take Holy Communion every day. On the news it said that Mr. Schiavo was following the court orders that she receive Holy Communion before the feeding tube was pulled and one more time which was administered on Easter. If allowing her to have a drop of Communion wine every day brings comfort to her grieving family what is the big deal? It is certainly not going to provide any amount of fluid replacement/nourishment (except spiritually). This issue alone makes Mr. Schiavo look like a bully who is withholding one of the Sacraments of the Church "because he can". Makes me think his issue is more a power struggle with the parents than following what he claims are Terry's wishes. Since he has moved on with his life (including adultry) he has shunned the teachings of the Church. This does not make him the best person to be determining what is in the best interest of Terry's spiritual or physical health. Also, his announcment that he wants to have an autopsy performed to prove his point was IMO just plain insensitive to the pain her family is going through. I know that in the past her parents have mentioned the same thing. BUT right now I think timing is a critical thing. Mr. Schiavo appears to be wanting to rush things as much as possible. He just seems awfully anxious for Terry to be dead.

curious · Mar 30, 2005

Piel said:
I found it interesting that on last nights news report from the hospice Mr. Schiavo's representative said (not an exact quote) that the lights were dimmed in the room, there were fresh flowers, Terry had her favorite stuffed animal, they were playing "Claire d Lune", she had moisturizer on her lips and was comfortable and in no pain. Also that she hadn't had tp receive any Tylenol and for the past 15 years has had to take Tylenol for pain. Now are all of these comfort measures for Terry or window dressing for the family and staff? I don't understand what Mr. Schiavo's problem with her receiving Holy Communion as often as her priest wants to administer it? Some Catholics take Holy Communion every day. On the news it said that Mr. Schiavo was following the court orders that she receive Holy Communion before the feeding tube was pulled and one more time which was administered on Easter. If allowing her to have a drop of Communion wine every day brings comfort to her grieving family what is the big deal? It is certainly not going to provide any amount of fluid replacement/nourishment (except spiritually). This issue alone makes Mr. Schiavo look like a bully who is withholding one of the Sacraments of the Church "because he can". Makes me think his issue is more a power struggle with the parents than following what he claims are Terry's wishes. Since he has moved on with his life (including adultry) he has shunned the teachings of the Church. This does not make him the best person to be determining what is in the best interest of Terry's spiritual or physical health. Also, his announcment that he wants to have an autopsy performed to prove his point was IMO just plain insensitive to the pain her family is going through. I know that in the past her parents have mentioned the same thing. BUT right now I think timing is a critical thing. Mr. Schiavo appears to be wanting to rush things as much as possible. He just seems awfully anxious for Terry to be dead.

yes,maybe he also wants to get his hands on the trust fund she had for her treatments(something she probably didn't recieve). since when a man that has moved on with his life and said in the past to one of terri's friend that he didn't know what her wishes were,but as soon as he got some money from a sue and got involve with his now fiance he does,quite convenient isn't it? why can this selfish man give the custody of a woman he does not care for to her parents if he has already a family with two kids makes you wonder what else is this man hidding hummm.....

Doggygirl · Mar 30, 2005

The thing that we all need to remember is that Terry's condition goes back 15 years, so that's 15 years of various events, communications, decisions, agreements, disagreements, etc. for all the family members concerned. While certain current events might seem odd, or even cruel on the surface, there is obviously much history to this within the family that we don't know.

So personally, I am trying really hard not to jump to any conclusions about anything as it pertains to the family disagreements.

I don't think any of us know what Terry's religious beliefs were before her brain was damaged (I sure don't anyway). Just because a person is raised in a particular religion when they are young, and the parents practice a particular religion doesn't necessarily mean the the adult child follows that path. Mr. Doggy is a great example. If he were to suddenly die (or become very ill) while his parents are still living, what Mr. Doggy wants by way religious activities is NOT at all in keeping with how he was raised, or what his parents would want. I'm glad once again that we have these things in writing. But if we didn't, I could easily see his parents getting very upset by what I know Mr. Doggy wants for himself, v. what they would want for him in this regard.

So once again, it's about Terry's wishes, not the parents wishes. And unfortunately, none of us know better than her husband about what she would want. And I'm not even suggesting he knows for sure. It's a big unknown.

DG

dlkksk8fan · Mar 30, 2005

Mr. Schiavo appears to be wanting to rush things as much as possible. He just seems awfully anxious for Terry to be dead.

__________________

Terri has been the way she is for 15yrs. I don't find that as being anxious to have someones feeding tube removed so she can die. 15 yrs is a long time to be in a vegetated state. I would hope that if I became brain dead with no hope of recovery that my husband would have moved on with his life. Plus I wouldn't want to live like that especially for 15yrs!

Ptichka · Mar 30, 2005

Piel said:
Since he has moved on with his life (including adultry) he has shunned the teachings of the Church. This does not make him the best person to be determining what is in the best interest of Terry's spiritual or physical health. Also, his announcment that he wants to have an autopsy performed to prove his point was IMO just plain insensitive to the pain her family is going through.

1. Piel, I hope your are not suggesting that a person who "shunns the teachings of the Church" should not be making those decisions. While I respect religious people's belives, I object strongly to the implication that that religious people are somehow more "moral" than agnostics or atheists.

2. I think the autopsy is a must. He has been so vilified in the media, it makes perfect sense to me that he would want to absolve himself in the eyes of the public as much as he can.

3. As to the power thing... I don't know. Don't forget that this conflict has been going on for a very very very very long time. It's not as if he just woke up one day and decided, "Hey, let's do everything against Terry's parents' wishes!". I do agree that this is not the best decision, but I think there is more history there than any one of us can know. Also, the whole rationale behind pulling the feeding tube was that essentially Terry is no longer a person. Having her receive Communion makes it seem like a live person is being starved. (I do not know that much about Catholicism, so this is just a speculation.)

"curious", did you forget a little thing called punctiation?

Piel · Mar 30, 2005

My mother and I have discussed this at length in the past week. Here is what she has told me....,.she would rather have me present and needing total care, visit me in a nursing home than visit me at the cemetary if I was not in pain or distress. I feel the same way about her. Just because we can not function at our former capacities does not make us less important as human beings. No one would think of not feeding a baby that has to receive total care. But what if the baby would never mature any and would stay a baby forever would you stop feeding it because there is no potential for improvment?

Just becausea person marries does not negate their relationship to their parents. More spouses divorce than there are parent-child estrangements. So if it brings my mother comfort to have me still living no matter how dependant on caregivers and if my mental state is such that I am not aware of what is going on why not allow my mother that comfort? The desire for us humans to stay alive is a strong one. Untill you are actually face to face with the choice of a poor quality of life and no life you don't know what you are willing to tolerate to stay in this world.

Piel · Mar 30, 2005

Ptichka what I am saying is that it seems the teachings of the Catholic Church are not important to Mr. Schiavo. They are to Terry's parents. So it is no skin off his *** to allow her parents the comfort that their religion brings them. Why would he want to make decisions on spiritual matters that are not a priority for him? Are you saying he must dehumanize her to justify letting her die?

I agree the autopsy is a must. I just think that is something that could wait to be brought up after she dies. Right now I think the most important people here are her parents. It is impossible to know what Terry's wishes are. It is impossible to know what her perceptions are if any. We do know that her parents love her and are clinging to the last of their daughter and get comfort from the rituals of their Church. We know that Mr. Schiavo has gone on, is in love with another woman and has a new family. It takes nothing away from Mr. Schiavo while it gives comfort to her parents so what is the harm?

Doggygirl · Mar 30, 2005

Piel said:
My mother and I have discussed this at length in the past week. Here is what she has told me....,.she would rather have me present and needing total care, visit me in a nursing home than visit me at the cemetary if I was not in pain or distress. I feel the same way about her. Just because we can not function at our former capacities does not make us less important as human beings. No one would think of not feeding a baby that has to receive total care. But what if the baby would never mature any and would stay a baby forever would you stop feeding it because there is no potential for improvment?

Just becausea person marries does not negate their relationship to their parents. More spouses divorce than there are parent-child estrangements. So if it brings my mother comfort to have me still living no matter how dependant on caregivers and if my mental state is such that I am not aware of what is going on why not allow my mother that comfort? The desire for us humans to stay alive is a strong one. Untill you are actually face to face with the choice of a poor quality of life and no life you don't know what you are willing to tolerate to stay in this world.

Piel, bless you and your Mom for having what can sometimes be a difficult conversation about your respective wishes. You have jointly done something challenging that will hopefully alleviate any family disputes should anything similar happen to either of you. Maybe you've already done this, but I encourage you as I would encourage anyone to make your wishes known in writing. We never know in this life from one day to the next what will happen.

The important point here is that you and your Mom have agreed on what your wishes are. And YOUR wishes about YOUR life and death should be respected exactly "as is" regardless of what anyone else thinks, or would wish for their own life. IMO, that's as it should be.

I think it's a big mistake to parlay our own wishes onto other people, assuming their their wishes would be the same as ours when we have no idea if that's true.

Religion is a very personal thing. For some people, the children follow in the parents' religion. But as I pointed out previously, that is not always the case, as it is SURELY not with Mr. Doggy and his parents. If Mr. Doggy were in Terri's position, I would never allow his parents to force religious practices on him that he disagrees with, no matter how much comfort it might give them. Michael's first obligation is to Terri, not to her parents. Just like my first obligation would be to carry out my husband's wishes to the best of my ability, ahead of his parents wishes.

And let's be reminded again that NONE of us knows all the history or the private details to even speculate what she might want.

And just to second some other motions, my husband and I talked a LOT through the process of setting up our living trust about what we would want for each other should one of us die (or become incapacitated like Terri) before the other. As much as it was a tough concept at first, I realized quickly that I WOULD want my husband to enjoy the company of another woman if I can't be there. I'm not suggesting this is the position that everyone should take, just because it's mine. But I do think it's a valid position that is taken by people beyond just me. So here we are once again back at the central issue - what would Terri want? It's not fair for any of us to project our own personal wishes onto her. And we will never know.

DG

Ptichka · Mar 30, 2005

Piel, you say there are more divorces than parent/ child estrangements. I would contend that it is only partially true. In most parent/ adult child relationships in the US today, parents and children talk at most once a week; they see each other even less. Too often, the parents still think of the their child as someone with philosophical/ religious/ moral belives they had when still living at home. The spouse, OTOH, gets a far more compete picture. It may be a book you read that effects your whole outlook on life - your spouse is much more likely to be aware of it than your parent. While I agree that a spouse's motives are more questionable than a parent's, I would contend that a spouse is far more likely to know what the person really feels about a given subject.

Also, I see no contradictions here even if the two people never articulated the issue. My fiance and I did discuss this subject in light of the Schivo case. We both realized that even though we never talked about this before, our understanding of the other's wishes was right on the mark. This understanding is formed by many occasional comments. We have to draw a line somewhere - and in my opinion defering to the spouse's decision is as good a line as any.

Vash01 · Mar 30, 2005

dlkksk8fan said:
Terri has been the way she is for 15yrs. I don't find that as being anxious to have someones feeding tube removed so she can die. 15 yrs is a long time to be in a vegetated state. I would hope that if I became brain dead with no hope of recovery that my husband would have moved on with his life. Plus I wouldn't want to live like that especially for 15yrs!

M.Schiavo has actually moved on with his life, with another woman and they have children. Nobody can blame him for finding another partner, but I find it disturbing that he wants to end the life of the woman who is not in his way.

Terri Shivo

Should the courts intervene to go against Michael Shivo's wishes?

Yes, Terri's life should be preserved.

No. Let her husband allow Terri's to die.

Piel

On Edge

swannanoa54

sk8rmom

gezando

Grgranny

Da' Spellin' Homegirl

jenaj

jenaj

jenaj

dorispulaski

Wicked Yankee Girl

Doggygirl

Piel

On Edge

curious

Doggygirl

dlkksk8fan

Ptichka

Forum translator

Piel

On Edge

Piel

On Edge

Doggygirl

Ptichka

Forum translator

Vash01

Similar threads

Connect with us