The OTHER Terri Schiavo thread (was: businessman offered $1m to save)

[ToeJam13]

A wealthy business tycoon has come to the apparent rescue of Terri Schiavo, the Florida woman who in 1990 suffered a stroke that left her in a near vegetative state. The tycoon, Robert Herring, believes that Mary could recover with modern medical treatments, such as stem cell regeneration, and has offered $1m to keep her alive. Mary?s husband, Michael Schiavo, who has been fighting for 15 years to allow her wife to die, has so far refused the offer.

Currently Terri Schiavo is physically alive. She is somewhat aware of her surroundings and reacts to external stimuli. However, she is running with an extremely diminished mental capacity, less than that of a newborn babe. She is fed via a feeding tube, as she is unable to consume food on her own.

Michael Schiavo has contended that his wife never wished to live in such a state. He has attempted to have his wife?s feeding tube removed on several occasions, only to be blocked by Terri?s parents and a host of other 3rd party individuals.

Robert Herring is yet another is a long list of people who have stepped into this highly publicized and extremely emotional issue. Florida governor Jeb Bush and the Florida legislature passed a law specifically to keep her alive before overturned by the courts.

Although a well-intentioned gesture, Robert Herring?s resources could be better used in so many ways. Each year, hundreds of homeless individuals die in the U.S. due to exposure, malnutrition and dangerous conditions. Each year, thousands of low-income students hoping for a better future are denied their chance due to the high cost of tuition. Finally, each year in Russia thousands of orphans suffer unimaginable mental and physical abuse due to the horrific conditions in Russian orphanages. The Russian government simply does not have the money to pay for caretakers to oversee these children, who eventually go feral due to the isolation.

The money, resources and publicity given to this woman who has clearly had her chance at life and is now little more than a vegetable disgusts me so thoroughly, I wish I could pull her feeding tube myself. The grieving parents who were unable to let go of their daughter, the do-gooding government officials? all of them are stuck in a perpetual tunnel vision of higher morality and self-centered behavior.

Michael Schiavo has already moved on, starting a new family and trying to get on with his life. It?s about time that everyone else does the same and lets this woman die the way nature has been prevented from accomplishing.

--
Update (2005-03-18):
Feed tube has been removed.

--
Update (2005-03-18):
Congress has stepped in with yet another delaying tactic after judges ruled previous laws unconstitutional. A congressional subpoena has been issued by the US House of Represenatives requiring the doctors to halt plans to remove Terri's tube until an "investigation of the case" has been completed.

--
Update (2005-03-19)
Congress, having been blown aside by a Florida State judge, is drafting legislation that would move the juristiction for cases like this from state court to federal court. President Bush has cut his trip to the south short to fly back to DC to await legislation, spear headed by congressman Bill Frist (R), that might save Terri's life by having her feeding tube reinserted.

--
Update (2005-03-21)
Congress passes emergency legislation that moves review of such cases from state to federal court.

--
Update (2005-03-22)
Federal judge denies request from parents' lawyer to have tube reinserted. Parents have filed an appeal to the district federal court in atlanta.

 

[Infohawk]

Is the guy willing to do this for all vegetables, or just ones that have crazy families?

 

[conehead433]

'Death with dignity' is something that has obviously been denied this woman.

 

[ntdz]

The offer has already been rejected.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: ntdz
The offer has already been rejected.

I remember there was some theory about how "he is in it for the money". I guess that goes out the window...

 

[joshw10]

Do you have a source for that article or is it your own writing?

I like how it says a man has offered to "rescue" her. Sounds like something you'd hear on FOX NEWS. Who is to say what rescuing would be anyway, letting her continue to live in a vegetative state or dieing naturally?

 

[Falloutboy]

let the poor lady die with what little dignity she has left....god 1 million dollars will do a whole lot more good helping people who really need the help

 

[joshw10]

Originally posted by: Falloutboy
let the poor lady die with what little dignity she has left....god 1 million dollars will do a whole lot more good helping people who really need the help

Trying to buy his way into a Republican office perhaps?

 

[slash196]

The same people that are fighting for her life on the grounds that she could recover with modern medical treatment are the same ones fighting the only medical treatment that could possibly save her (stem cell therapy).

 

[Slogun]

Originally posted by: joshw10
I like how it says a man has offered to "rescue" her. Who is to say what rescuing would be anyway, letting her continue to live in a vegetative state or dieing naturally?

Yea, at first I thought the thread originator was going to be a pro-lifer.

 

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: Slogun

Originally posted by: joshw10
I like how it says a man has offered to "rescue" her. Who is to say what rescuing would be anyway, letting her continue to live in a vegetative state or dieing naturally?

Yea, at first I thought the thread originator was going to be a pro-lifer.

so...starving one to death is a "natural" way to die?...I see....well I guess going on that theory there are thousands of starving people in the US that die "naturally" everyday so why all the fuss over thier "natural" deaths?

I find it rather ironic that the ones who are pushing for her death are, for the most part people who are pro-choice. If a mother has the right to choose when her child dies while it is in her womb and cannot speak for itself, then if that same child is in a persistant vegitative state should the mother also have a "choice" then of when her child dies then? I don't really see what the difference is. How do you know that Terri is not aware of her situation and has learned to accept her state? just because she stated many years ago she would not want to live that way does not mean that she would still feel that way...after all at the time she said it she was where she is now...it's kinda like saying "if I lost a leg I would not want to live anymore" then you loose a leg and guess what, you may just decide that you can llive without that leg after all. I personally am pro-choice, but at the same time I don't know what Terri would want because I am not there to see her everyday like her parents....and maybe she has communicated to them that she wants to live....you don't know you aren't there.

Most of you would not starve a dog...why would you want to starve a human?

 

[joshw10]

Originally posted by: Wheezer

Originally posted by: Slogun

Originally posted by: joshw10
I like how it says a man has offered to "rescue" her. Who is to say what rescuing would be anyway, letting her continue to live in a vegetative state or dieing naturally?

Yea, at first I thought the thread originator was going to be a pro-lifer.

so...starving one to death is a "natural" way to die?...I see....well I guess going on that theory there are thousands of starving people in the US that die "naturally" everyday so why all the fuss over thier "natural" deaths?

I find it rather ironic that the ones who are pushing for her death are, for the most part people who are pro-choice. If a mother has the right to choose when her child dies while it is in her womb and cannot speak for itself, then if that same child is in a persistant vegitative state should the mother also have a "choice" then of when her child dies then? I don't really see what the difference is. How do you know that Terri is not aware of her situation and has learned to accept her state? just because she stated many years ago she would not want to live that way does not mean that she would still feel that way...after all at the time she said it she was where she is now...it's kinda like saying "if I lost a leg I would not want to live anymore" then you loose a leg and guess what, you may just decide that you can llive without that leg after all. I personally am pro-choice, but at the same time I don't know what Terri would want because I am not there to see her everyday like her parents....and maybe she has communicated to them that she wants to live....you don't know you aren't there.

Most of you would not starve a dog...why would you want to starve a human?

It's the same people who want her to live forever in a vegetative state as their trophy that have enacted laws so that if she is to die, she must be slowly starved.

 

[ToeJam13]

Originally posted by: joshw10
Do you have a source for that article or is it your own writing?

Article is my own writing, thank you very much. Sources include BBC News and CNN.

Originally posted by: Slogun

Originally posted by: joshw10
I like how it says a man has offered to "rescue" her. Who is to say what rescuing would be anyway, letting her continue to live in a vegetative state or dieing naturally?

Yea, at first I thought the thread originator was going to be a pro-lifer.

Sarcasm just does not come off on print the way it does in real life.

Originally posted by: Wheezer
so...starving one to death is a "natural" way to die?...I see....

When both your higher brain functionality and most of your more cognative instictual functionality is gone, you'll starve to death unless external forces jump in to save you. That or the wolves and bears will eat you.

I personally believe that she should be euthanized. Why let her starve for six days when a shot in the arm will allow her to finally rest in less than 5 minutes. Of course, that's murder. Fine line perhaps, but in the end the results are the same.

 

[Wheezer]

It's the same people who want her to live forever in a vegetative state as their trophy that have enacted laws so that if she is to die, she must be slowly starved.

so I guess her parents don't have a daughter they love and care for...she is just a "trophy" for them....I see...you made a solid case there...:disgust:

When both your higher brain functionality and most of your more cognative instictual functionality is gone, you'll starve to death unless external forces jump in to save you. That or the wolves and bears will eat you.

I personally believe that she should be euthanized. Why let her starve for six days when a shot in the arm will allow her to finally rest in less than 5 minutes. Of course, that's murder. Fine line perhaps, but in the end the results are the same.

your personal views don't matter...if you have children I want you to tell me you would hold these same views if it was your kid. Anyone can talk sh*t infront of a keyboard, and can easily say what they would do when they are not in a given situation, it is a completely different matter when you are confronted with the choice to pull the plug. Hell according to you when Chris Reeves was in a coma we shoulda pulled the plug then...right? But he came out of it right? But who knew then how long it would be? NO ONE. How long should a person be in a coma before a decision is made to pull the plug? and who has the right?

Again I ask, if a mother has the right to decide when her child dies prior to being born then why doesn't she have that right if the child, no matter how old is in a coma? explain the difference. THAT is the crux of my argument.

 

[jhu]

Originally posted by: Wheezer

Originally posted by: Slogun

Originally posted by: joshw10
I like how it says a man has offered to "rescue" her. Who is to say what rescuing would be anyway, letting her continue to live in a vegetative state or dieing naturally?

Yea, at first I thought the thread originator was going to be a pro-lifer.

so...starving one to death is a "natural" way to die?...I see....well I guess going on that theory there are thousands of starving people in the US that die "naturally" everyday so why all the fuss over thier "natural" deaths?

I find it rather ironic that the ones who are pushing for her death are, for the most part people who are pro-choice. If a mother has the right to choose when her child dies while it is in her womb and cannot speak for itself, then if that same child is in a persistant vegitative state should the mother also have a "choice" then of when her child dies then? I don't really see what the difference is. How do you know that Terri is not aware of her situation and has learned to accept her state? just because she stated many years ago she would not want to live that way does not mean that she would still feel that way...after all at the time she said it she was where she is now...it's kinda like saying "if I lost a leg I would not want to live anymore" then you loose a leg and guess what, you may just decide that you can llive without that leg after all. I personally am pro-choice, but at the same time I don't know what Terri would want because I am not there to see her everyday like her parents....and maybe she has communicated to them that she wants to live....you don't know you aren't there.

Most of you would not starve a dog...why would you want to starve a human?

good question. the answer, of course, is yes, if your child is in a persistant vegetative state, what's the point keeping him "alive"? also your analogy is flawed since you don't need your limbs to be congnitively intact.

 

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: jhu

Originally posted by: Wheezer

Originally posted by: Slogun

Originally posted by: joshw10
I like how it says a man has offered to "rescue" her. Who is to say what rescuing would be anyway, letting her continue to live in a vegetative state or dieing naturally?

Yea, at first I thought the thread originator was going to be a pro-lifer.

so...starving one to death is a "natural" way to die?...I see....well I guess going on that theory there are thousands of starving people in the US that die "naturally" everyday so why all the fuss over thier "natural" deaths?

I find it rather ironic that the ones who are pushing for her death are, for the most part people who are pro-choice. If a mother has the right to choose when her child dies while it is in her womb and cannot speak for itself, then if that same child is in a persistant vegitative state should the mother also have a "choice" then of when her child dies then? I don't really see what the difference is. How do you know that Terri is not aware of her situation and has learned to accept her state? just because she stated many years ago she would not want to live that way does not mean that she would still feel that way...after all at the time she said it she was where she is now...it's kinda like saying "if I lost a leg I would not want to live anymore" then you loose a leg and guess what, you may just decide that you can llive without that leg after all. I personally am pro-choice, but at the same time I don't know what Terri would want because I am not there to see her everyday like her parents....and maybe she has communicated to them that she wants to live....you don't know you aren't there.

Most of you would not starve a dog...why would you want to starve a human?

good question. the answer, of course, is yes, if your child is in a persistant vegetative state, what's the point keeping him "alive"? also your analogy is flawed since you don't need your limbs to be congnitively intact.

please, re-read what I wrote....How do you know that Terri is not aware of her situation and has learned to accept her state?

Before you all decide that yo are worthy to play God, perhaps you should take a look at some of these clips and form your opinion based on ALL avalable information rather than what you decide to pick and choose from some biased source.

See it in real life.

 

[jhu]

please post a link with unedited video, preferably focused on terri for hours upon hours at a time. or even better, if you have ct or mri scans of her brain, that would be great.

and to answer your question with another question, how do i know that you aren't human?

 

[Wheezer]

so if I did post you are a medical doctor and have the knowledge how to read such information? If that is the case then shouldn't you be more concerned about the welfare of the people your native land of Afghanistan rather than the fate of a woman whom you don't know or really care about? I would think that if you feel you are so self-righteous then maybe you could put that attitute to a beneficial cause rather than wasting your time arguing with me over the internet. Oh wait a minute...that's right many over there are already dying a "natural" death...you know with the abundance of food and such.

I am sure you can read to a certain degree...educate yourself:

If Terri hasn't recovered after all these years of therapy, why not let go?

Terri hasn't had meaningful therapy since 1991, but many credible physicians say she can benefit from it.

Why can't Terri just divorce?

Terri's husband/guardian speaks for her. She cannot divorce without his permission

Does Terri have an advanced directive or any wishes about her healthcare?

Terri never signed any directive or living will and there is no evidence that she foresaw her present situation.

Why do Terri's family fight to keep her alive? Shouldn't they let her husband decide?

Terri's husband has started another family and probably has gone on with his life. Terri's family want to provide her therapy and a safe home.

Is Terri receiving life support?

Not in the traditional sense. Terri only receives food and fluids via a simple tube.

Isn't removing her tube a natural and dignified way to die?

No. Dehydration and starvation cause horrific effects and are anything but peaceful. Read more here.



Most common misconceptions about Terri's situation

MYTH: Terri is PVS (Persistent vegetative state)
FACT: The definition of PVS in Florida Statue 765.101:
Persistent vegetative state means a permanent and irreversible condition of unconsciousness in which there is:

(a) The absence of voluntary action or cognitive behavior of ANY kind.
(b) An inability to communicate or interact purposefully with the environment.

Terri's behavior does not meet the medical or statutory definition of persistent vegetative state. Terri responds to stimuli, tries to communicate verbally, follows limited commands, laughs or cries in interaction with loved ones, physically distances herself from irritating or painful stimulation and watches loved ones as they move around her. None of these behaviors are simple reflexes and are, instead, voluntary and cognitive. Though Terri has limitations, she does interact purposefully with her environment.

MYTH: Terri does not need rehabilitation
FACT: Florida Statute 744.3215 Rights of persons determined incapacitated:

(1) A person who has been determined to be incapacitated retains the right
(i) To receive necessary services and rehabilitation.

This is a retained right that a guardian cannot take away. Additionally, it does not make exception for PVS patients. Terri has illegally been denied rehabilitation - as many nurses have sworn in affidavits.

MYTH: Removal of food was both legal and court-ordered.
FACT: The courts had only allowed removal of Terri's feeding tube, not regular food and water. Terri's husband illegally ordered this. The law only allows the removal of "life-prolonging procedures," not regular food and water:

Florida Statute 765.309 Mercy killing or euthanasia not authorized; suicide distinguished. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to condone, authorize, or approve mercy killing or euthanasia, or to permit any affirmative or deliberate act or omission to end life other than to permit the natural process of dying.

MYTH: Many doctors have said that there is no hope for her.
FACT: Dr. Victor Gambone testified that he visits Terri 3 times a year. His visits last for approximately 10 minutes. He also testified, after viewing the court videotapes at Terri?s recent trial, that he was surprised to see Terri?s level of awareness. This doctor is part of a team hand-picked by her husband, Michael Schiavo, shortly before he filed to have Terri?s feeding removed. Contrary to Schiavo?s team, 14 independent medical professionals (6 of them neurologists) have given either statements or testimony that Terri is NOT in a Persistent Vegetative State. Additionally, there has never been any medical dispute of Terri?s ability to swallow. Even with this compelling evidence, Terri?s husband, Michael Schiavo, has denied any form of therapy for her for over 10 years.

Dr. Melvin Greer, appointed by Schiavo, testified that a doctor need not examine a patient to know the appropriate medical treatment. He spent approximately 45 minutes with Terri. Dr. Peter Bambakidis, appointed by Judge Greer, spent approximately 30 minutes with Terri. Dr. Ronald Cranford, also appointed by Schiavo and who has publicly labeled himself ?Dr. Death?, spent less than 45 minutes examining and interacting with Terri.

MYTH: This is just a family battle over money.
FACT: In 1992, Terri was awarded nearly one million dollars by a malpractice jury and an out-of-court malpractice settlement which was designated for future medical expenses. Of these funds, less than $50,000 remains today. The financial records revealing how Terri?s medical fund money is managed are SEALED from inspection. Court records, however, show that Judge Greer has approved the spending down of Terri?s medical fund on Schiavo?s attorney?s fees - though it was expressly awarded to Terri for her medical care. Schiavo?s primary attorney, George Felos, has received upwards of $400,000 dollars since Schiavo hired him. This same attorney, at the expense of Terri?s medical fund, publicly likened Terri to a ?houseplant? and has used Terri?s case on national television to promote his newly published book.

MYTH: Michael Schiavo volunteered to donate the balance of the inheritance to charity.
FACT: In October, 1998, Schiavo?s attorney proposed that, if Terri?s parents would agree to her death by starvation, Schiavo would donate his inheritance to charity. The proposal came after a court-appointed Guardian Ad Litem cited Schiavo?s conflict of interest since he stood to inherit the balance of Terri?s medical fund upon her death. This one and only offer stated ?if the proposal is not fully accepted within 10 days, it shall automatically be withdrawn?. Naturally, Terri?s parents immediately rejected the offer.

MYTH: Terri's Medical Trust fund has been used to care for her.
FACT: The following expenditures have been paid directly from Terri's Medical Trust fund, with the approval of Judge George Greer:

Summary of expenses paid from Terri?s 1.2 Million Dollar medical trust fund (jury awarded 1992)

NOTE: In his November 1993 Petition Schiavo alleges the 1993 guardianship asset balance as $761,507.50

Atty Gwyneth Stanley
Atty Deborah Bushnell
Atty Steve Nilson
Atty Pacarek
Atty Richard Pearse (GAL)
Atty George Felos


$10,668.05
$65,607.00
$7,404.95
$1,500.00
$4,511.95
$397,249.99

Other

1st Union/South Trust Bank


$55,459.85

Michael Schiavo


$10,929.95

 

[jhu]

Originally posted by: Wheezer
so if I did post you are a medical doctor and have the knowledge how to read such information? If that is the case then shouldn't you be more concerned about the welfare of the people your native land of Afghanistan rather than the fate of a woman whom you don't know or really care about? I would think that if you feel you are so self-righteous then maybe you could put that attitute to a beneficial cause rather than wasting your time arguing with me over the internet.

truthfully, we find it odd that you people can waste so much time and energy keeping a brain-dead woman's body alive.

 

[Wheezer]

your right it would be much more productive to cultivate poppy fields

 

[jhu]

you have quite the obsession with this brain-dead woman.

 

[Wheezer]

no, what I have an obession with, is the fact that in this "throw away" society of ours, it is so easy for people to play God and decide what who should live and who should die based on a few snippets of the news or on a biased news source they choose to believe. It is so easy to make a decision for someone else whe you are not the one facing the consequences. A majority of people on this board are pro-choice...fine I have no problem with that at all...what I have a problem with is CONSISTANCY....it is in my view hypocritical to say that a woman has the right to decide if or when her unborn child should die, but yet if that child suffers a dabilitating disease or accident which puts them in a permanant coma then the mother has no right to choose at that point in time. The person who does have the right, in this case the husband, has for all intents and purposes moved on and started another family, I would think that for the new families sake he would let it go and move on....there is no need for him to drag them along this pot hole ridden path do you think? For anyone to be that obsessed over thier former spouses vegitative state for this many years, there is an ulterior motive, it may not be money, but he is not pushing for her to die simply out of sympathy for her. IMO at one time it was for the money, but now that it has dried up if he stops pushing now then he will look like an a**hole and perhaps he is a person that would rather continue this fight and save face. can't say for sure, just speculation on my part.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Wheezer
no, what I have an obession with, is the fact that in this "throw away" society of ours, it is so easy for people to play God and decide what who should live and who should die based on a few snippets of the news or on a biased news source they choose to believe. It is so easy to make a decision for someone else whe you are not the one facing the consequences. A majority of people on this board are pro-choice...fine I have no problem with that at all...what I have a problem with is CONSISTANCY....it is in my view hypocritical to say that a woman has the right to decide if or when her unborn child should die, but yet if that child suffers a dabilitating disease or accident which puts them in a permanant coma then the mother has no right to choose at that point in time. The person who does have the right, in this case the husband, has for all intents and purposes moved on and started another family, I would think that for the new families sake he would let it go and move on....there is no need for him to drag them along this pot hole ridden path do you think? For anyone to be that obsessed over thier former spouses vegitative state for this many years, there is an ulterior motive, it may not be money, but he is not pushing for her to die simply out of sympathy for her. IMO at one time it was for the money, but now that it has dried up if he stops pushing now then he will look like an a**hole and perhaps he is a person that would rather continue this fight and save face. can't say for sure, just speculation on my part.

The woman has been in a coma for FIFTEEN YEARS.

'Throw-away' is a poor adjective.

Playing God is forcing her to keep eating from a tube, when she is not biologically capable of remianing alive, and all hope for meaningful recovery has faded into the past.

 

[Wheezer]

did you read anything I posted prior? Why don't you go back and re-read here and come back after you have at least made some attempt to comprehend what I posted about the 18th post down. If you read that and decide afterwards that none of that matters and you wish to just sweep it all aside and continue to base your decision on what YOU think is right for her fine, that is your choice you have at least decided to condisder all the facts before you inserted your head in your ass and for that I would give you a standing round of applause.

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Wheezer
no, what I have an obession with, is the fact that in this "throw away" society of ours, it is so easy for people to play God and decide what who should live and who should die based on a few snippets of the news or on a biased news source they choose to believe. It is so easy to make a decision for someone else whe you are not the one facing the consequences. A majority of people on this board are pro-choice...fine I have no problem with that at all...what I have a problem with is CONSISTANCY....it is in my view hypocritical to say that a woman has the right to decide if or when her unborn child should die, but yet if that child suffers a dabilitating disease or accident which puts them in a permanant coma then the mother has no right to choose at that point in time. The person who does have the right, in this case the husband, has for all intents and purposes moved on and started another family, I would think that for the new families sake he would let it go and move on....there is no need for him to drag them along this pot hole ridden path do you think? For anyone to be that obsessed over thier former spouses vegitative state for this many years, there is an ulterior motive, it may not be money, but he is not pushing for her to die simply out of sympathy for her. IMO at one time it was for the money, but now that it has dried up if he stops pushing now then he will look like an a**hole and perhaps he is a person that would rather continue this fight and save face. can't say for sure, just speculation on my part.

The woman has been in a coma for FIFTEEN YEARS.

'Throw-away' is a poor adjective.

Playing God is forcing her to keep eating from a tube, when she is not biologically capable of remianing alive, and all hope for meaningful recovery has faded into the past.

No crap, if you wanna play the "god" issue, "god" woulda let this lady die long time ago. It's us humans that are fvkin with "gods" will. I'm not one to rely on "god" for anything, and I still say this lady needs to be let go.