![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 14 to 38 of 41. Go back in thread:
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
Posted by Toph on March 26, 2005, at 12:50:02
In reply to Re: Terri Schiavo - what do you think?, posted by JKL on March 26, 2005, at 7:33:09
>
> There is so much energy and enthusiasm for this helpless woman to die it is stunning.
>
There is even more energy and enthusiasm to interfere and disavow what this helpless woman wanted for herself, it is cruel.
Posted by Miss Honeychurch on March 28, 2005, at 8:50:45
In reply to Re: Terri Schiavo - what do you think?, posted by Toph on March 26, 2005, at 12:50:02
>
> >
> > There is so much energy and enthusiasm for this helpless woman to die it is stunning.
> >
> There is even more energy and enthusiasm to interfere and disavow what this helpless woman wanted for herself, it is cruel.
We don't really know what Teri wanted for herself. Her husband decided that after he received his million plus settlement (and I know there is nothing left)that he all of a sudden remembered what Teri told him one night while watching TV. Before then, he was gung ho for her survival. It apparently took him several years to "remember" Teri's wishes.Why don't we just give her a lethal injection and call it a day? It would be much more humane than starving her to death. We treat dogs better than we do people. If a dog had Teri's condition (not being able to swallow), he would be humanely put to sleep. Or would a lethal injection be considered murder? I'm being earnest here, not sarcastic. What is the difference?
Posted by AuntieMel on March 28, 2005, at 10:50:16
In reply to Re: Terri Schiavo - what do you think?, posted by JKL on March 26, 2005, at 7:33:09
I think my brain has fried. I could have sworn I commented on this - I even remember the words.
"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."
Her folks did try to take her home once and brought her right back - she needed more care than they could handle.Nurses have not fed her that way. She had 4 state-of-the-art swallow evaluations and all 4 indicated she didn't have that potential.
The sad thing is that whatever made her a special human being has long since died and will not come back.
Posted by Toph on March 28, 2005, at 10:59:10
In reply to Re: Terri Schiavo - what do you think?, posted by Miss Honeychurch on March 28, 2005, at 8:50:45
> We don't really know what Terri wanted for herself.
No, you and I don't, only Terri and her husband, and multiple courts which found clear and convincing evidence that Terri did not want to live in a persistive vegetative state where she has only reflex reactions to stimulus, unable to even reconize the feces in which she lies until cleaned up by someone else. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall that she and her husband had these discussions after two encounters with people they knew who were in similar states.
I hope my wife loves me enough to mercifully let me go per my wishes if I have as little cerebral cortex remaining as Terri sadly does. I respect, Hiss Honeychurch, whatever you and your loved ones privately choose for yourselves and pray that no one interferes and imposes their agendas on your individual decisions, as I hope that no one does the same to me.
Toph
Posted by Miss Honeychurch on March 28, 2005, at 11:09:41
In reply to Re: Terri Schiavo - what do you think?, posted by Toph on March 28, 2005, at 10:59:10
The whole situation just saddens me so much. That it has gone on for so long. That no one had anything wrtten down. Just so sad. I hope she dies in peace.
Posted by Toph on March 28, 2005, at 11:40:24
In reply to Re: Terri Schiavo - what do you think? » Toph, posted by Miss Honeychurch on March 28, 2005, at 11:09:41
Posted by AuntieMel on March 28, 2005, at 11:51:39
In reply to Re: Terri Schiavo - what do you think?, posted by Miss Honeychurch on March 28, 2005, at 8:50:45
The heart attack that caused the brain damage was in Feb. 1990
A small(ish) settlememt was awarded Aug. 1992
The large settlement was awarded Nov. 1992. around 250k went to Michael for loss of companionship and 750k went into a trust fund for her care.
In Feb, 1993 (according to court documents) the parents and husband severed what had been a good relationship - because he would not give them half of his part of the award.
The parents tried to have him removed as guardian in July 1003
He didn't try to remove the tube until May 1998, over 8 years after the heart attack, and six years after the settlement.
I think we probably have good people with different opinions. Her husband who, after trying everything possible in the way of treatment, finally came to terms with his grief and feels that keeping her artificially alive would be against what she would have wanted - and cruel.
And we have her parents, who still haven't come to terms with their grief. Who see breathing as life and who can't give up hope, even in the face of medical reality.
It just doesn't to me to be fair to paint him as an unfeeling monster. Over the years he spent the most time with her and took wonderful care of her. I think now he just wants her to have peace.
Posted by partlycloudy on March 31, 2005, at 9:32:09
In reply to Re: timeline - and no good vs evil » Miss Honeychurch, posted by AuntieMel on March 28, 2005, at 11:51:39
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.