![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 6 to 30 of 41. Go back in thread:
Posted by gardenergirl on March 21, 2005, at 11:00:32
In reply to Terri Schiavo - what do you think?, posted by partlycloudy on March 21, 2005, at 7:01:10
I'm right with you on this one, PC. I think this is a decision that belongs to the family and the doctors. I feel for the entire family. It must be hard when there is clearly a divide among them. And I think it's extremely difficult for anyone else, Congress, Judges, the public, the President, etc. to form an opinion without firsthand knowledge of this woman's condition and her life.
My in-laws have living wills as well as regular wills. They update their children every year on where these documents and other important information are located each year. I think they've been doing it long enough it no longer feels morbid. It's really a gift to do this for your loved ones. I would encourage everyone to do this. You just never know. And don't just talk about it with others. Put it in writing and put this in a secure and yet accessible place.
Sigh.
gg
Posted by Miss Honeychurch on March 21, 2005, at 12:12:11
In reply to Terri Schiavo - what do you think?, posted by partlycloudy on March 21, 2005, at 7:01:10
I think starving someone to death is ridiculous. She has not had any sort of therapy since 1991. If she had, she could probably eat on her own. Her husband controls everything - doesn't allow her open windows, doesn't allow her tv. Doesn't allow her any form of therapy.
I think that if someone publicly said they were going to starve a dog or cat there would be HUGE outcry.
Terri is not in a coma nor is she a "vegetable." Her husband decided, once he was awarded his $2.5 million, that O yeah, she once told me while we were watching a tv program that she wouldn't want to live like a vegetable.
She's not brain dead, not on a respirator, not unconscious. She responds to her family, cries when her huband shows up.
She has not been given a chance. There is a nurse who treated Terri a few years back who said that TErri CAn swallow and doesn't NEED a feeding tube. That with propoer therapy, she can feed herself. Her husband denies her this.
Posted by Miss Honeychurch on March 21, 2005, at 12:16:13
In reply to Re: Terri Schiavo - what do you think?, posted by Miss Honeychurch on March 21, 2005, at 12:12:11
Posted by Toph on March 21, 2005, at 13:02:42
In reply to Terri Schiavo - what do you think?, posted by partlycloudy on March 21, 2005, at 7:01:10
Isn't it also ironic that some day stem cell research might have helped Terri?
Toph
Posted by partlycloudy on March 21, 2005, at 13:07:21
In reply to Re: Terri Schiavo - what do you think?, posted by Miss Honeychurch on March 21, 2005, at 12:12:11
I still think that the problem here is that our government has no right whatsoever to interfere in what is clearly a family dispute between Terri's husband and her parents. The husband is the guardian, not the parents. The patient made her wishes verbally known long before her heart attack, and that expressed wish is what he is honouring.
Posted by Miss Honeychurch on March 21, 2005, at 13:27:16
In reply to Re: Terri Schiavo - what do you think? » Miss Honeychurch, posted by partlycloudy on March 21, 2005, at 13:07:21
But how do we have proof that's what she wanted?? He never mentioned anything about such a wish until AFTER he was awarded $2.5 million by a jury. He said the $2.5 million would be used for her care and he said she would live with him the rest of his life and he would take care of her. Why did he not mention this wish of hers before he was awarded all of this money??? It seems so fishy to me.
He also mentions that she stated this wish when they were casually watching TV together, and the woman in the movie was in a coma and hooked up to a breathing machine.
He has moved on with his life. He has 2 children now and a common law wife. He refuses to divorce Terri.
I just am not buying the fact that he knows she told him this. It seems pretty convenient to me to play the sympathy card to get $2 mill and then remember out of the blue one of her wishes.
And had Terri had proper therapy, she might be able to verbalize her wishes. As I said before, she has been denied therapy by her husband. WHY?
To be starved to death is brutal and painful and agonizing. Terri can feel pain, she even feels menstral cramps. However, Terri's husband says that she is not being starved to death, rather just all of her nutrition and hydration are being stopped.
Makes me want to scream.
Posted by partlycloudy on March 21, 2005, at 13:40:05
In reply to Re: Terri Schiavo - what do you think? » partlycloudy, posted by Miss Honeychurch on March 21, 2005, at 13:27:16
I simply would not want a government to take these decisions out of a patient's or guardian's hands. It's an outrageous robbery of citizens' private rights.
Terri's story is a tragedy no matter which way one looks at it - I am just angered at how the politicians have taken it over to further their own agendas.
Posted by rainbowbrite on March 21, 2005, at 14:54:04
In reply to Re: Terri Schiavo - what do you think?, posted by Miss Honeychurch on March 21, 2005, at 12:12:11
Posted by Toph on March 21, 2005, at 18:49:20
In reply to Terri Schiavo - what do you think?, posted by partlycloudy on March 21, 2005, at 7:01:10
How do I redirect this thread from the politics board to the family board?
Toph
Posted by gardenergirl on March 22, 2005, at 0:13:27
In reply to Re: Terri Schiavo, posted by Toph on March 21, 2005, at 18:49:20
> How do I redirect this thread from the politics board to the family board?
>
> TophHi Toph, here are directions for redirecting. I admit I don't hang out at the parents board, which I assume is the one you are talking about. But this seems like a political discussion to me?
For those who'd like to help keep it organized here:
1. Repost the post to a different board
Go to the posting form with "include above post" checked.
Change "board" to the new board.
Add "« poster" or something like that to the subject.
Post.
2. Post a link to the original board
Copy the "your message" URL in the above confirmation.
Go back to the original post.
Go to the posting form.
Don't change "board".
Add "redirect" or something like that to the subject.
Explain what you're doing.
Paste in the URL you copied.
Post.
It's an extra step, but to try to minimize confusion about who's posting what, I've started adding the "posted by" line to the quote of the post in step 1.gg
Posted by Toph on March 22, 2005, at 8:27:56
In reply to Re: Terri Schiavo » Toph, posted by gardenergirl on March 22, 2005, at 0:13:27
Thanks gg, but I was making more of a rhetorical comment than an actual question.
Posted by AuntieMel on March 22, 2005, at 12:17:42
In reply to Re: Terri Schiavo - what do you think?, posted by Miss Honeychurch on March 21, 2005, at 12:12:11
I admire you greatly for being such a caring person.
But there are a few details missing from your account. Probably because the Schindler website left them out, too - and goodness knows the media is only going to play the sensational.
The University of Miami has a pretty good unbiased accounting of things:
http://www.miami.edu/ethics/schiavo_project.htm
From here and other places (I don't remember them, but I can look them up for you if you like) are a few details:
The malpractice award was granted in November 1992. The first petition to remove the tube was in May 1998 - six years later. Most of the award was put in a trust fund to care for her - and has been exhausted. Claims of her husband wanting to keep that money for himself are clearly exagerated.
Five people testified at first that she would not want measures taken to keep her alive - including her brother and sister.
The CT scan shows a large portion of the cerebral cortex missing, replaced by cerebral spinal fluid. This is the area of the brain that controls everything but the 'automatic pilot' functions, like wake, sleep, breathing, heart beating, etc. EEGs show the same thing.
The longer a person stays in this state the greater the odds are of never recovering. For someone to recover after this long would truly require a 'loaves and fishes' type of miracle.
A pretty unbiased report is in http://www.miami.edu/ethics/schiavo/wolfson%27s%20report.pdf, written by a guardian appointed by the courts.
And about withholding feeding and hydration - it is actually a pretty calm, painless way to go.
But to PC's original question - I don't think this was a place for congress to step in. Someone emailed in to CNN yesterday saying (paraphrased) that the Pres thinks he's congress - declaring war - and now the congress thinks they are the justice department. Someone should teach these folks their job descriptions.
Posted by TofuEmmy on March 22, 2005, at 13:24:10
In reply to Re: Terri Schiavo - what do you think? » Miss Honeychurch, posted by AuntieMel on March 22, 2005, at 12:17:42
Mel - I love the way you are able to take the distracting emotions out of both sides of a discussion and focus attention on facts. I wish I were better at that.
emmy
Posted by gardenergirl on March 22, 2005, at 13:39:44
In reply to Re: Terri Schiavo » gardenergirl, posted by Toph on March 22, 2005, at 8:27:56
Oh, I'm not so good at picking up at that. ;)
There's another poster who comments about other poster's use of rhetorical questions, thinking it's uncivil. At times I think this poster is referring to my questions, which are generally curious. I suppose I should look that word up.
It may not mean what I think it means. Which, of course, would be inconceivable! ;)
gg
Posted by partlycloudy on March 22, 2005, at 14:02:05
In reply to What she said » AuntieMel, posted by TofuEmmy on March 22, 2005, at 13:24:10
> Mel - I love the way you are able to take the distracting emotions out of both sides of a discussion and focus attention on facts. I wish I were better at that.
>
> emmyI wish I could do it at all!
Posted by AuntieMel on March 22, 2005, at 14:07:38
In reply to What she said » AuntieMel, posted by TofuEmmy on March 22, 2005, at 13:24:10
For everyone involved. Both sides of the issue are good intentioned, I believe. But from listening to the media bits I just had a need to try to put some perspective to it - for myself.
I think it's just so sad that it became a circus.
And of course congress didn't help by joining in.
Another irony - the pres flew back to Washington to sign a bill to 'save' a person that has a huge chunk of brain missing but didn't hesitate a minute to allow executions of the mentally retarded.
Posted by gardenergirl on March 22, 2005, at 15:30:37
In reply to Re: It's really a tough case » TofuEmmy, posted by AuntieMel on March 22, 2005, at 14:07:38
Yep. Ironic, isn't it?
Here's another one that boggles my brain, if it's true. My hubby was telling me yesterday that there is a law in some large state out west, hmm, I think it begins with a T...maybe you know it Auntie Mel? But anyway, this law says that docs can override families and decide to take a patient off of life-support if the support is deemed "futile". Or was it "feudal" that my hubby was saying? ;) He seemed to link "futile" and "not being able to pay".
Now I don't know if any of this is true, so I can't say that my reaction is entirely fair.
But if it is true, anyone wanna guess name of the gov. at the time?
gg
Posted by TofuEmmy on March 22, 2005, at 15:38:52
In reply to Re: It's really a tough case, posted by gardenergirl on March 22, 2005, at 15:30:37
Idi Amin ? :-/
Posted by TofuEmmy on March 22, 2005, at 15:40:34
In reply to Re: It's really a tough case » gardenergirl, posted by TofuEmmy on March 22, 2005, at 15:38:52
Posted by AuntieMel on March 22, 2005, at 16:56:03
In reply to Re: It's really a tough case, posted by gardenergirl on March 22, 2005, at 15:30:37
He's right, but it's not as bad as you think.
In fact the National Right to Life orginization helped draft the law.
It says that if a hospital's ethics committee determines that further life support is 'futile' *and* the family can find no other facility to take the patient (within 10 days) the hospital can take the patient off of life support. Feeding tubes don't (for this law) count as futile life support.
What the law was designed to do was to make it tougher to take someone off life support against the family's will. Before this, there was no legal requirement to require treatment at all. So if there was a disagreement it nearly always ended up in a court - subject to the feelings of the presiding judge.
There was a case recently in the news. Newborn baby, born with a defect so that the rib cage and lungs could not grow. Even on a breathing machine, the baby would slowly suffocate.
The hospital (Texas Childrens, one of the best in the world) tried to do the best by the family. Besides hiving the mom more than the required 10 days, they also paid for the lawyer to help her take it to court.
But the law was clear - and no other facility would take him. Eventually they did shut down the ventilator.
Another case followed shortly, the wife wanted to keep her husband on a ventilator and the hospital said it was futile. She found a place willing to take him and moved him.
Hospitals here are not allowed to send someone away for lack of funds or insurance (not counting elective treatment, of course.) Another reason the folks here are ticked at the current governor. He cut CHIP funding (turning away fed money) and put the burden on local hospitals.
Posted by gardenergirl on March 22, 2005, at 17:04:28
In reply to Re: We're not really barbarians » gardenergirl, posted by AuntieMel on March 22, 2005, at 16:56:03
That sounds so much better. I'll bet he found that on a partisan site. Thanks for giving more info.
gg
Posted by rayww on March 24, 2005, at 18:03:45
In reply to Re: It's really a tough case, posted by gardenergirl on March 22, 2005, at 15:30:37
What does all this cost down there in Texas? I would say, "you pay, you stay". Equal rights are just for those who can afford them. Now, if we lived in the perfect world where there was no need for money, only love, it might be different, but here, money is God, so money rules. Like I know anything. And this isn't even an opinion. But seriously, what has it cost, and who has made money on this case? What is driving it? Is it moral, ethical values, or lawyers itching for lucre?
Posted by AuntieMel on March 25, 2005, at 11:01:05
In reply to Re: It's really a tough case » gardenergirl, posted by rayww on March 24, 2005, at 18:03:45
That may be true where you are, but the rule here has nothing to do with money.
The lady that found a place to move her husband didn't have a bunch of money either. Before his latest medical emergency that required the breathing machine he was bedridden and on tube feeding - and she did it all at home.
Posted by JKL on March 26, 2005, at 7:33:09
In reply to Terri Schiavo - what do you think?, posted by partlycloudy on March 21, 2005, at 7:01:10
> ...about the involvement of the federal government in this woman's life?
Uhh, the involvement of the judges in her death is what you should have said.
There is so much energy and enthusiasm for this helpless woman to die it is stunning.
What goes around comes around. It wouldn't surprise me to see these judges leave this world in horrible fates of their own.
They should have just let Terri go home with her folks and have them spoon feed her baby food. Nurses have fed her that way.
If she is truly a vegetable, then she should be feeling no pain, and what would it matter if she was at home. Oh, but it's cruel to live that way you say? Oh, she might choke and die? Is she a vege or not? Get it straight.
For the time being, the best way out of this is to starve the poor creature? Just think what a backlash there would be if we did that to prisoners of war or death row inmates. But it's fine to do it to Terri. Geez.
Posted by gardenergirl on March 26, 2005, at 12:32:26
In reply to Re: Terri Schiavo - what do you think?, posted by JKL on March 26, 2005, at 7:33:09
>
> What goes around comes around. It wouldn't surprise me to see these judges leave this world in horrible fates of their own.Charming
> They should have just let Terri go home with her folks and have them spoon feed her baby food. Nurses have fed her that way.Well, if the nurses have been doing that, then based on the location of her brain damage, they are putting her at risk for aspirative pneumonia, since she presumably has no gag reflex. And thus, they are increasing her risk of death. I quite certain that would be against state licensure for nurses.
>
>
> For the time being, the best way out of this is to starve the poor creature? Just think what a backlash there would be if we did that to prisoners of war or death row inmates. But it's fine to do it to Terri. Geez.I don't see the connection at all. Unless you are thinking of POW's or death row inmates who also have no cortical activity? Otherwise, it's apples and oatmeal.
Regards,
gg
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.