Court to remove feeding tube

[BloodNGlory02]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...amaged_woman_18

Who is her husband to decide if she should live or die? The part that really gets me is that her parents say she smiles, laughs and tries to talk. How can you take the life of a human being knowing they can somewhat communicate? I could see if she was in a coma and never coming out of it, but she is alert for christ sakes! She's been in this vegatative state for 15 years, why pull her feeding tube now? If its against what she told him prior to this incident, its already gone on too long, why not continue? People have offered this man a million dollars to let her parents assume care/responsibility for her and he denied it. Why would anyone want to pull life from their significant other, other than money and cruelty?

Sure her life is being sustained by artifical means, but there was no written documentation that this woman did not want CPR or recesitative means. In Ems, If the patient doesnt have papers signed by them and their doctor saying "no cpr" we are required by law to perform CPR even if the family says no. So where does this man get off saying pull her tube its not what she wanted, and the court can say ok? Isnt that a double standard?

I hope her family wins and assumes care of her, and I hope he rots in hell. He should be charged with attempted murder because thats what he's essentially doing- taking someone elses life.

 

[Chimpie]

This is a hard case. I can only ask questions as I'm torn on which side to lean on.

If you don't remove the feeding tube now, then when? 10 more years? 20? What if that scientific miracle doesn't come?

She's trying to communicate, but no one knows what she is saying. Maybe she is saying, "let me die." Maybe she is asking to stay alive. Who knows.

Spending the last three years just south of Tampa before moving out here, we heard a lot about this case. Trust me, everyone has a different opinion.

Go on the side of the husband, who truely believes that she will not get better and that her wife really didn't want to live this way. How hard do you think it is to know that she is in the hospital like this? If you were in his shoes, would you want to just walk away, leaving her to her parents? For one million? For ten? For free? Knowing that she is still "alive" up there.

On the side of her parents, that's their baby. They never want to lose their baby. I know what that's like (sort of). (Long story) They want to hold out for that miracle.

Cases like this have to go to court. That's why we have courts. To have judges who represent the good and rightous to make decisions in matters like this. The judge says the feeding tube is to be removed. Whether we like it or not we must respect it. You have the right to make statements and give opinions. But don't blame the husband for what you are not sure about.

 

[rescuejew]

I dont want to step on any toes here, since I'm new, but I have a different opinion. Terry Schiavo was married for many years to the same man if I remember correctly. I believe there is spousal priveledge there. If I am ever in that situation, I would want my HUSBAND to make decisions for me. My parents and I are close and they know I would never want to live like that but nobody knows you better than the person you are married to. Perhaps they had a late night discussion, or several late night discussions in which Terry told her husband that under no circumstances did she want to live that way. Maybe he is trying to carry out her wishes in order to honor his love for her. Maybe her parents cant let go.

To me, this is the same situation that some gay couples face. Their unions are not recognized by law in most states so to give their spouse the authority to make decisions for them, they have to make them their POA. Older couples dont think of it because they dont see the legality and younger couples dont think of it because in our 20's, 30's and 40's we are invincible and we think nothing terrible will happen to us. In any event, we tell the person we love, who shares our life, and our home what we want and should we be debilitated we want that person to carry out our wishes should we be unable to do so. I admire Terrys' husband for trying to do that for her and for not letting the media, or Jeb Bush, or Terrys' parents make a mockery out of his wifes' last wish.

 

[EMTstudent]

Since I live in central Florida, it's our top story of every day. I have been following the case for a long time.

Turns out, I don't believe it's the money at all, because realistically, any money that the insurance would have paid has probably already been spoken for by the medical bills...
He was offered late last week 1 million dollars from a business man in California to just give her up to her parents. He declined. Evidently he has been offered as much as 10 million dollars by wealthy business owners to just let her go...to let her parents take care of her. Still he refused. If he wanted her insurance money so bad...which I don't think is 10 million dollars...why would he turn down the money? Any greedy person would say "uh...okay... here mom and dad, you take her... I'll take the money and go to Europe.." or something like that.

Like you all said, I believe he is sticking by her, to make sure that her wishes are carried out.

I have told my husband of 9 years the same thing before. It's not on paper...but he has clear orders that I never want to be on ANY life support whatsoever, and that I want to be cremated when I die. I would think that being my husband he is my legal guardian and not my parents. I have been living with this man for 10 years, so I think he would take precedence over my parents.

I don't know, but that's my personal feelings on the subject. The parents still think after 15 years of Terri being in this state of mind, will still get better. The Doctors have all agreed that she is not getting better. Her brain is dead. Dead brain tissue does not grow back or repair itself. We all know that. I just think the parents are hurting terribly and are in denial.

If that were my son... (and I have thought of this) I would have taken him off the support years ago. 1) I don't think I could go on a daily basis seeing him in that condition. and 2) He's not getting the quality of life I would want for him.
My son, 10 yrs old, who knows about the case, even told me he would not want to live in a hospital for the rest of his life.


I know everyone views this case differently, some are angry about it, some are heartbroken...and everyone has their own personal experiences... so I hope that my opinions don't upset anyone here.


Have a good day. If they do pull the tube tomorrow, lets hope that she goes quickly so she doesn't suffer long.

 

[Jon]

I live in greater Philly (Oh, wher we have had 30+ murders in 10 days - different issue) and this has ALWAYS been a leading story, as she was born and raised locally. The news is saying the feeding tube is now removed.....


I think the husband has the right to end her sufferring.


On a side note, this is an example of post-code survival (or not...)


jon

 

[Summit]

The issue of whose decision aside, if you are going to terminate the person, WHY THE **** ARE YOU GOING TO STARVE THEM TO DEATH FOR 2 WEEKS TO DO IT???????

Jeez... if you are going to end them, just inject a lethal dose of MS04 and be done with it. What if some part o their brain is awake to feel themselves starve for 350 hours?

-

On a side note I'm told that a guy we picked up the other day (1v MVA ejection) is on life support but the family will remove him soon... rumors hopefully... but he is probably done for.

 

[rescuecpt]

I had to help my family make a decision like this, and it was extremely difficult, but in the end it is what the patient wanted. There was nothing written, just conversation and what I was told by the patient in the last year before the sh*t hit the fan. It isn't an easy decision for anyone, but you need to remember what the patient wants, and trust that the husband isn't lying about that. If he just wanted to be "free" he could have walked away years ago.

That's all I'm saying on this because it's too close to home.

 

[BloodNGlory02]

The issue of whose decision aside, if you are going to terminate the person, WHY THE **** ARE YOU GOING TO STARVE THEM TO DEATH FOR 2 WEEKS TO DO IT

exactly my point. its inhumane to starve this poor lady to death. She is still a human- brain activity or not. Thats murder. So if you have a child with severe mental retardation and dont know it until its born, does that give you the right to starve it because you dont believe anyone should live that way? This case is getting more disgusting by the day.

 

[rescuecpt]

Originally posted by BloodNGlory02@Mar 20 2005, 12:19 AM

The issue of whose decision aside, if you are going to terminate the person, WHY THE **** ARE YOU GOING TO STARVE THEM TO DEATH FOR 2 WEEKS TO DO IT

exactly my point. its inhumane to starve this poor lady to death. She is still a human- brain activity or not. Thats murder. So if you have a child with severe mental retardation and dont know it until its born, does that give you the right to starve it because you dont believe anyone should live that way? This case is getting more disgusting by the day.

If she only has brain stem activity (which is what I think but I haven't been following the case too closely) then she won't feel the starvation. (now i'm done i swear)

 

[coloradoemt]

Originally posted by BloodNGlory02@Mar 19 2005, 11:19 PM

The issue of whose decision aside, if you are going to terminate the person, WHY THE **** ARE YOU GOING TO STARVE THEM TO DEATH FOR 2 WEEKS TO DO IT

exactly my point. its inhumane to starve this poor lady to death. She is still a human- brain activity or not. Thats murder. So if you have a child with severe mental retardation and dont know it until its born, does that give you the right to starve it because you dont believe anyone should live that way? This case is getting more disgusting by the day.

I get a kick out of the leaps and bounds some folks will try to justify their point of view.

My only opinion on this is that the government should not be involved in the decision making process. Any other opinion is mute as I am not a dirrect family member.

 

[emtchicky156]

If they put the tube back in this will be the third time, which is hurting everyone involved (the pt, her husband and parents). A decision needs to be made and stuck with.

 

[CodeSurfer]

Originally posted by coloradoemt@Mar 21 2005, 09:13 AM
My only opinion on this is that the government should not be involved in the decision making process. Any other opinion is mute as I am not a dirrect family member.

I couldn't agree more with you... The government is using this as a red herring and a tool to gain political points. If the president wants to help save innocent lives he should spend his time taking care of thngs in the middle east so he can bring the troops home. This is just to distract the public from the REAL issues the government should be taking care of.

Let the family work things out... if the husband just wanted to be done with her dont you think he would just divorce her and let her parents take care of her? Obviously he still cares about her and what she told him she wanted.

As for my opinion on what should be done? I don't know what I would do, luckily I have never been in that situation. I can see it from both sides and think it is an incredibly tough decision for THE FAMILY to make. Having this mainstreamed has just made the decision more difficult for the family because now whatever happens there will be people upset... it really is a lose/lose situation for everyone.

 

[ffemt8978]

Just to throw more fuel on the fire....

Does anyone know what the Florida law is pertaining to divorcing somebody that is mentally incompetent? I know in some states, you can't do this and other states you can. That could be why he hasn't divorced her yet, but I can't be sure about it.

I wholeheartedly agree that the government should not be involved in this, especially at the federal level. After all, the issue was REPEATEDLY decided in state court. This sets a dangerous precedent that may have serious, unforseen repurcussions (i.e. death penalty cases).

 

[Summit]

Originally posted by coloradoemt+Mar 21 2005, 09:13 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (coloradoemt @ Mar 21 2005, 09:13 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-BloodNGlory02@Mar 19 2005, 11:19 PM

The issue of whose decision aside, if you are going to terminate the person, WHY THE **** ARE YOU GOING TO STARVE THEM TO DEATH FOR 2 WEEKS TO DO IT

exactly my point. its inhumane to starve this poor lady to death. She is still a human- brain activity or not. Thats murder. So if you have a child with severe mental retardation and dont know it until its born, does that give you the right to starve it because you dont believe anyone should live that way? This case is getting more disgusting by the day.

I get a kick out of the leaps and bounds some folks will try to justify their point of view.

My only opinion on this is that the government should not be involved in the decision making process. Any other opinion is mute as I am not a dirrect family member. [/b][/quote]
*ahem*

If you were referring to my comments in *that*, I don't think I was stating anything but fact.

followed by my pragmatic and less brutal suggestion:

If you are goin to kill someone in that state, just kill em (OD em on painkillers), don't starve them to death for two weeks.

I'm not sure if it's murder or not so I didn't put an opinion on that, but there is a humane way to dob such terrible things and starving a body to death is not the humane way.

 

[coloradoemt]

Originally posted by Summit+Mar 21 2005, 09:27 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Summit @ Mar 21 2005, 09:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by coloradoemt@Mar 21 2005, 09:13 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-BloodNGlory02

@Mar 19 2005, 11:19 PM

The issue of whose decision aside, if you are going to terminate the person, WHY THE **** ARE YOU GOING TO STARVE THEM TO DEATH FOR 2 WEEKS TO DO IT

exactly my point. its inhumane to starve this poor lady to death. She is still a human- brain activity or not. Thats murder. So if you have a child with severe mental retardation and dont know it until its born, does that give you the right to starve it because you dont believe anyone should live that way? This case is getting more disgusting by the day.

I get a kick out of the leaps and bounds some folks will try to justify their point of view.

My only opinion on this is that the government should not be involved in the decision making process. Any other opinion is mute as I am not a dirrect family member.

*ahem*

If you were referring to my comments in *that*, I don't think I was stating anything but fact.

followed by my pragmatic and less brutal suggestion:

If you are goin to kill someone in that state, just kill em (OD em on painkillers), don't starve them to death for two weeks.

I'm not sure if it's murder or not so I didn't put an opinion on that, but there is a humane way to dob such terrible things and starving a body to death is not the humane way. [/b][/quote]
Naw.... I was not quoting you.

 

[Jon]

Originally posted by ffemt8978@Mar 21 2005, 06:10 PM
Just to throw more fuel on the fire....

Does anyone know what the Florida law is pertaining to divorcing somebody that is mentally incompetent? I know in some states, you can't do this and other states you can. That could be why he hasn't divorced her yet, but I can't be sure about it.

What I have heard is that he likley could, but I would assume he wants the CLOSURE, vs. Abandoning her and what he belives are her wishes.

I wholeheartedly agree that the government should not be involved in this, especially at the federal level. After all, the issue was REPEATEDLY decided in state court. This sets a dangerous precedent that may have serious, unforseen repurcussions (i.e. death penalty cases).

I agree with you. It scares me that Congress took it upon themselves to grant themselves a power the constitution DID NOT GRANT. The right to tell the courts "We don't like that answer - take a mulligan and try again"

I hope that the judges along the route refuse to hear the case because it isn't constitutional.

If they hear the cases, it will set a precident.

Jon

 

[Firechic]

This issue has made me decide to go and put all of my wishes that I have already discussed with my husband on paper and make it legal. I would hate to have my parents and husband go through a similar experience.

 

[CodeSurfer]

I am only 18 and I am going to have my decisions on what to do with me etc. put into writing and legalized. You are never too young... life is so unpredictable. :unsure:

 

[Jon]

Originally posted by CodeSurfer@Mar 24 2005, 02:52 AM
I am only 18 and I am going to have my decisions on what to do with me etc. put into writing and legalized. You are never too young... life is so unpredictable. :unsure:

I'm seriously thinking the same as a 29 year old.


Jon

 

[Jon]

Originally posted by MedicStudentJon@Mar 25 2005, 07:33 AM

I'm seriously thinking the same as a 29 year old.


Jon

19