Supreme Court rules on case after 15 years.



Well, this is definately a personal issue that's been played out on a national political level. I was going to post this in the "Will Jeb run in 2008" thread but there's more to the case than that so I started a new thread for it. I guess I would have no idea what I would do in this situation, so am not going to side with either one, and i don't know the legal possibilities (who gets precedence), etc. I would probably have removed the tube after 15 years as much as it pains me to say so, since I'm speaking from the ocmpletely theoretic here. I don't know. I guess if doctors said there was a slim chance, I might not, but it seems like a decade long drawn out death. Painful all the way around, and in Florida its become a serious political battle as well. There were sections of the article about anti-choice groups saying this was a ruling about starving a life to death, which I don't agree is the case, but I left it out in order to avoid this becoming an abortion topic related thread.

I've heard arguements that this is an intentional political moment, but since its 15 years by now, there might be some capitalization of it, but its too precarious a situation to win mass support over regardless of which side the governor chooses, so I doubt it that. I'm not sure what it is actually. Its one of those personal moments that somehow ceased being a family affair over a decade ago.

The only thing that bothers me about that article is:

Mr. Schiavo contends she never wanted to be kept alive artificially

But it makes no mention of if this woman actually wanted to fight till the end. Its too difficult to assess on that article alone what the different factors are. it says she reacts and even speaks. if she speaks, isn't the decision upto her?

Well it mentions she was 26 and hadn't planned for this (who does at 26?). The husband is making comments based on having lived with her and feeling that he knows what she would want. The parents, of course, feel the same way, but with a different outcome. By reactions I assume automatic, such as heart beating, etc. What the doctors are saying is that though her eyes may physically move, she's not "seeing" anything. I don't know. Its two questions, personally what one would assume in the situation, since the parents and husband both feel differently, and the second is how the hell she became such a political platform. The whole situation is just tough to think about on many levels. I can pretty much only visualize it in this sort of synical space, but never any words...just an image. Its not a good one.

I don't want to get into if this is morally right or wrong, but it bothers me that the Governor had any say what so ever into what happened. This is the kind of decision that should be left to the families and the families alone. How terrible is it to use this as some sort of political agenda?

Well in the same way, I don't know if family itself can be sometimes in the right position. My family has lived with me for so long? Do they have any idea how I would want to go? Sure I haven't made plans for this but I do know atleast (or i think i know) what i would preferably want if something happens. Yet its not something i've shared with anyone?? Which is the only reason why i have an issue with the husband's argument on it as well ....

and then again, her parents want her alive too ... so who has more say .. the husband who she chose to spend her life with or the parents who have known her longer than anyone.

It's downright inhuman to let her "live" like this. I'm sure she'd rather die in peace and dignity rather than spend the rest of her life as a vegetable. Appearantly the family wants to keep her alive, but her husband should be the decision-maker. I know it's hard to let go of a loved one, but in something like this, it's the right thing to do and you just have to let go.

*sigh* Issues like this piss me off.

So you'd rather put the decision in the hands of the government just because the family might disagree or might not know exactly what to do?

As for the second issue, i'd say the husband has more say in the issue. I'm not sure how the whole marriage thing works, but isin't that part of getting married? You have the right (and responsiblity) to make decisions like this?

Did I say the govt?? I said the husband really is not in that much of a situation either really.
You think the husband should decide. I personally don't think that. Is that a part of getting married? to me its not. I don't think when i get married, i'm really giving my wife the decision making power whether i can live or not.

@Jon: How can you possibly say what you just said. Do you know what the wife wants? You know, I would probably wanna die as well but I know if I was in her situation, I would feel like shit if i sucumb to taking that easy way out. To me, life as crap as it is is worth fighting for. And thats my opinion only. Are you saying if i'm lying in her position that you can possibly say the same thing about me? The truth is, we do not know what the woman wants or doesn't want.

@Forum Members: Is there a law anywhere that says who has the decision making power in a situation where it is still possible for someone to live yet they themselves are in no position to decide if they want to end it or not?

Makeshift, I don't think the govt should have a say in if you can live or not, but i do think the govt should be in a position to create standards (whether that be the husband taking the decision, father, mother, the govt itself, or letting a person live and say no to euthanasia). That much right i give the govt, ofcourse after coming to a consensus on a subject.

And again, if shes only 26 (the same age as my girlfriend), if i was married to her, to me, her family has a larger right to decide. I may have been close to a person a few years but getting married to someone doesn't mean you've automatically relegated yourself to a position where you understand them better than the rest of her family combined together.

I agree with what you're saying bABA, but i've always been under the impression that when two people get married they automatically become "one" in the eyes of the government, and if that is the case, then you'd think the husband would be granted more of a say in the matter, even if her family did know her better. I wish someone could clarify this issue. Mike? NCAR?

As for the second issue, I think the only role the government should play in the matter is enforcing the decision the family comes to together. I think it's imperative that the decision is reached as a family, though, and not as husband vs. family. All sides need to be involved, even the doctors.

Well you may be right here. Again, I do not live in the states so I do not know what the law itself is. Like i said, i don't have issues with the husband coming to a decision as long as its legit in the eyes of the law. Thats why for me the govt is such an important thing. This family should not be in this position right now. There should be a law (based on sound reasoning) who is allowed to make decisions in these situations. The govt certainly shouldn't but if no rule like this even exists, we can debate till the end of eternity on it.

Well on the other hand, has the court more to say in this than the governor? I say yes, others may not. The fact is after 15 years they are not going to come to any decision in the family. I'm commenting on Jon's refence too. All this feels, if you can picture this, like there is a woman in a hospital bed and there are her parents on one side waving fingers at the husband who is on the other side. Meanwhile the husband has a rope and on the other end is attached the local courts (he's tugging) and the parents have a rope and they're pulling with all their might at Jeb attached to the other end. There are a ton of cameras, and basically this insecure woman who had an eating disorder 15 years ago has images of her pale, frail body plastered on all these papers and websites (both for and against). The family won't decide, they're supposed to mediate through the courts, the courts sided with the husband but in desperation the parents will grab at any life-line, even the governor's political image if it means he'll support them. He is, I'm not sure why, maybe zach knows more about what his actual arguement? And we all get to stare. I dunno, I would have let her die, as Jon said, in peace instead of in the papers, but then again, who else can really say they've been faced with this situation, so I really don't know. I think when the family has a falling out over this (which clearly they have) that the court has been established to handle these affairs, I actually have no clue how the governor has any grounds for involvement, even if its at the parent's request. If someone knows that?

Slow down there. We have no way of knowing what she wants, I know, but the husband wants her to die with dignity rather than spend the rest of her days as a vegetable, and that's the argument that makes sense here to me. That's what I was trying to say.

I tend to agree, but this is the kind of situation where each case is different. If you decide that the family should have the final say, there might be some case down the line where the husband actually does know better and has no say in the matter and vice versa. It's a really tricky situation that I think needs to be handled on a case by case basis - possibly by the courts, like Galia said.

But you yourself just said who knows what she wants?

And define dignity? Is dignity the person who sees themselves in a state of vegetable, cannot do a single thing and realize thats not the way a person should be and gives up their life?? Quite a few would say that is. On the other hand, lets put a spin on that and say that i may be a vegatable, frail, my body decaying but I will have the will to fight on because ordering to be put off a light support system means i took the easy way out, or i gave in, that i didn't have the strength. And thats more dignified. The physical body and my state doesn't matter. what matters is that till the end moment, i showed some strength to fight for what little i had. To some, that may be a sign of dignity.

You're judging this situation according to how it seems appropriate to you.

I hate having to beleive your argument but i'll have to say that at the end of the day, you're right. It is indeed quite tricky and yes, i would prefer some sort of governing body to make a decision, even if its on a case by case basis (in this case the court is the governing body to me). its just sad what dolce said. her name on websites, pictures, people using her for political agendas for 15 years now. thats what i find unfair about the whole situation.

Not exactly bABA. Because the way you speak about it still implies mental strength, or at least a conept of cogniscence (sp?). She is pretty much brain dead with the exception of a couple body functions (which were mentioned in the article). Look, I'm all for Stephen Hawking staying alive even though his body is rotting, he;s a genius. The question here is really about if you're forcing animation onto someone who long ago stopped being alive. And what's the fight if its beyond recovery? As in, you're assuming that if you keep fighting you might come out of it, but 15 years and showing no sign of change?

I think what is meant by dieing in dignity is to be personal and with people that are close to you, not in the national limelight over some strife between the courts and the governor. I'm kind of surprised the family has allowed it to get to this level were one woman on life support is on the front page of the Times. But I guess both sides are set in stone and won't budge regardless of the fact that its really making their daughter/wife's inability to function with out a feeding tube into a publicity agenda.

:wink:

Of course I am.

not really Dolce.

I guess to me its not just about if you're concious about something. I guess if i'm brain dead, am i even feeling anything? no. In such a situation, unless the resources the hospital is using on me may be used for someone else who has a probable chance of surviving, i would like to wish for my family to keep me alive for as long as possible. i do not care what the media does. atleast deep inside my soul (if you believe in one to begin with), i'll die easier. doesn't matter if i stopped being alive a long time ago. I know this is my opinion but i know others share this opinion as well. i'm not projecting my views onto this woman, just trying to point out that there are people out there who would want it like that for themselves yet having never considered something like this to happen to them, have never voiced them. I didn't do so till this day either. if i'm clinicially dead, why would it bother me that my image is on the front page? why would it matter to me what the politicians are doing if I use your argument to begin with. my dignity in some ways ended with my life 15 years prior as it is. Its sick and gross i agree but this dignity word is open to too many interpretations.

Exactly and it's unfortunate that fate dealt her a bad deck of cards, but she should be in the hands of God.. Who can honestly say here in this thread that this is the way they would want to exit this world, like a Vegetable??? Just let her R.I.P.. [-o<

Ok, I see your point. But the fact of the matter is alot of people go into comas, and not all of them end up in the media. In fact, all of them don't, so its quite clear what's going on here. As far as I'm concerned you may not ever voice it directly to your family or girlfriend, but don't you think someone close to you would able to deduce your desires from knowing your character so well? As far as I'm concerned, I'm agreeing with everyone else here. But on a technical standpoint I would say this. The parents want her to remain hooked up to the machine. They are not considering that if one day she miraculously sprung to life that she would probably spend the rest of what life she has left being partially or fully retarded (and I mean this in the literal sense) probably not being able to speak, etc, and probably confined to a full wheelchair. And that's if some miracle happens, most likely she'll just continue to be animated by some outside force even though she's "dead" this is a vegetative state. They love her, but this firstly gives no one closure, and secondly they know that they're publicizing it to keep her alive or they'll have no chance. They're purposefully breaking the law (the court's decidion) and appealing to a governor's sense of powerhunger or media attention (or whatever) because they are desperate. The fact of the matter is the husband won in court, and prior to this, court decisions held. That is the previously established method you guys are wishing was operating. It is, and it is case by case as well, since ieach case goes before a judge and I'm sure in enough cases the court ruled the other way depending on the medical facts, sentiments of living family, etc.

Really, if the parents think the husband just wants her dead so that he can move on with his life (that's harsh, after 15 years, I'd think the parents would realize what they're doing is a diservice to themselves and their daughter, but that's just me) than I would offer him the divorce, financial clarification, and everything else that would allow him to leave. If he says that's not what its about, and that he loves her and honestly thinks she wouldn't want to be held in such a state of semi-existance for so long, than I would settle. I would make a legal contract with the parents that has a time limit. If five years from now on Jan, 1st she hasn't awoken, then we'll remove the feeding tube. And then just wait and see. If the time comes, remove it. Period. I'm pretty mad that the parents and husband can't come to some sort of compromize by themselves, as I think Makeshift commented yesterday, its a very private issue and those involved have a responsibility to Terri to come to a private conclusion about her. Dragging in the circus is just wrong.

Didn't the parents think he wanted her money or something??I guess if its moving on, a compromise can only be reached by terminating him from the marriage altogether. But if thats not the case, conpromise is pretty much impossible. either she dies or stays alive. i think makeshift is right to but it seems evident even after 15 years that the family cannot privately come to a decision. And its not like the govt, courts and the governer just stepped in. they were called in BY THE FAMILy.