RustyAngeL Posted March 21, 2005 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 23 Topic Count: 155 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 7,464 Content Per Day: 1.02 Reputation: 8,810 Days Won: 57 Joined: 03/30/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/12/1952 Share Posted March 21, 2005 I haven't heard anyone say she is brain dead, but she is brain damaged. She has been this way for 12 years now. While I don't agree with what is going on, I can only say for myself again...I would not want to live that way. She may regain some of what was lost with therapy but she is never going to be what she was. It is so sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ovedya Posted March 21, 2005 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 375 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 11,400 Content Per Day: 1.44 Reputation: 125 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/30/2002 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/14/1971 Share Posted March 21, 2005 I have heard that Michael Schiao was/is a registered nurse, and that there was some question when Terri was originally admitted to the hostpital as to some bone fractures they discovered, which is consistent with physical abuse. Without getting into the issue of whether or not Terri was physically abused, I have a question to anyone in the medical field about the affects of water pills on the body. I have heard that water pills either directly deplete potassium in the body, or cause the body to not be able to synthesize potassium. Potassium depletion could have caused Terri's physical ailment leading to her so-called "Permanent Vegitative State" (I am not convinced that she is in such a state given the evidence from the videos and some expert testimony for Terri's parents). It stands to reason for me that if there are some allegations of abuse, and given the fact that as a registered nurse Michael could have had access to these drugs, that he would want Terri dead in order to cover up any evidence. But a lot of this is speculation, so I would like to hear from any registered nurses and/or physicians on the boards, if it is possible to administer water pills in lethal doses in order to cause the type of physical ailment that led to Terri's condition in the first place. The whole thing sounds really fishy to me. In the first place, Terri was in this state for at least three years before Michael had ever mentioned anything about her wanting to die if she were ever in this condition. And the fact that the court relied upon hearsay evidence in this case is just absurd. Secondly, the fact that Michael vowed to exhaust any and all resources at his disposal to find a way to bring Terri out of this state, and has not only not done so, but has stated that he actually wants her dead is very suspect in my opinion. Michael Schiavo is not divorced from Terri. His current wife is some kind of "common law wife," and he still has custody over Terri. Now, Terri's parents have already said that they offered to pay Michael any sum in order for him to turn over custody to them, so that they can take care of Terri. Why would Michael even care what happens to Terri, given the fact that he already has this other wife, and children by her? The only logical conclusion in my mind is that Michael wants Terri to die so that he can receive the remainder of an inheritance, or so that some kind of evidence of abuse or wrongdoing can be covered up for good. It is striking to me that we as a society would intentionally cause someone to suffer the horrible pain of starvation and dehydration in order to "stop the suffering." it is not that Terri is hooked up to a bunch of devices in order to keep her alive. She is alive. Her heart is beating, she is breathing on her own, and her brain is functioning far beyond what physicians for the court (Court appointed physicians) have testified to. Starvation in and of itself is a horrible way to die. There is nothing humane about it whatsoever! Allowing Terri to starve to death as a means of "humanely putting her out of her misery" would send a chilling message to the thousands of people that are in the same state as Terri Schiavo. It is not unimaginable that we as a society would take such a message and extend it to other less debilitating situations. It would cause us to redefine the term "quality of life" to the degree that perhaps in the future we may find it "reasonable" to allow our disabled or elderly to suffer the pain of starvation "humanely." Just imagine if Christopher Reeve were alive today. Would we reasonably "Put Mr. Reeve out of his misery" because his quality of life is not such that he would have ever recovered from his paralysis? Perhaps someday (Lord forbid) you or I will be in our later years broke, confined to a whelchair, living off a meagerly Social Security income, eating dog food because that's all we can afford, and someone comes along and says, "Well, your quality of life is not such that we can allow you to live. To die is better. Therefore, we are going to confine you to a hospice bed and allow you to starve to death. After all....it's the humane thing to do. I weep for fallen humanity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
traveller Posted March 21, 2005 Group: Royal Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 827 Topics Per Day: 0.10 Content Count: 12,101 Content Per Day: 1.50 Reputation: 249 Days Won: 3 Joined: 04/01/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted March 21, 2005 I weep for fallen humanity. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No kiddin. What a future to leave for our children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abigailwc Posted March 21, 2005 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 51 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 499 Content Per Day: 0.07 Reputation: 3 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/29/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/08/1964 Share Posted March 21, 2005 Those of you who state that we should not interfere and let the husband choose to end his wife's life or let her live, would you be honored to be designated to pull the feedings tubes and let Terri die of dehydration and starvation? IMO pulling the feeding tubes is committing murder. The person is alive. Who has the right to take her life but God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerioke Posted March 21, 2005 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 97 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,850 Content Per Day: 0.84 Reputation: 128 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/19/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/11/1911 Share Posted March 21, 2005 I haven't heard anyone say she is brain dead, but she is brain damaged. She has been this way for 12 years now. While I don't agree with what is going on, I can only say for myself again...I would not want to live that way. She may regain some of what was lost with therapy but she is never going to be what she was. It is so sad. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> How can you tell if you could handle being that way or not unless you actually experience it. I always say I can't handle living in Nova Scotia but here I am handling it. You might just change your mind if you're there, and I hope somebody who loves you would be around to stop anyone from harming you God bless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwinkjr Posted March 21, 2005 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 62 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,430 Content Per Day: 0.20 Reputation: 6 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/04/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/18/1981 Share Posted March 21, 2005 Those of you who state that we should not interfere and let the husband choose to end his wife's life or let her live, would you be honored to be designated to pull the feedings tubes and let Terri die of dehydration and starvation? IMO pulling the feeding tubes is committing murder. The person is alive. Who has the right to take her life but God. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Who has the right to keep her alive by artificial means? If God wants her to live then remove the feeding tube and let God have his way with her. I mean come on, for over 10 years she has laid in a bed unable to even eat, is this what God wants for her life? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Fog, It may very well be waht God wants for her, are you willing to make that decision for him? If God wanted her with him that feeding tube would not get in his way. Since when is feeding someone considered keeping them alive by artificial means? please see my last post in this topic for some other examples of this. God Bless, Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted March 21, 2005 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.94 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted March 21, 2005 Who has the right to keep her alive by artificial means? If God wants her to live then remove the feeding tube and let God have his way with her. I mean come on, for over 10 years she has laid in a bed unable to even eat, is this what God wants for her life? You don't believe in God. You don't know God. You don't know God's ways. Don't try to act like you do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ovedya Posted March 21, 2005 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 375 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 11,400 Content Per Day: 1.44 Reputation: 125 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/30/2002 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/14/1971 Share Posted March 21, 2005 Those of you who state that we should not interfere and let the husband choose to end his wife's life or let her live, would you be honored to be designated to pull the feedings tubes and let Terri die of dehydration and starvation? IMO pulling the feeding tubes is committing murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimR-OCDS Posted March 21, 2005 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 6 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 429 Content Per Day: 0.06 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/02/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted March 21, 2005 I just read this. Interesting factoid about Dubya. When he was governor of Texas, George Bush signed into effect a law that grants hospitals the right to cut off life support in cases that are even more controversial than Schiavo's. Under Texas law, hospitals can cease to feed a patient whose prognosis is so poor that further care would be futile if that patient has no way to pay his or her medical expenses. A baby was pulled of life support under that legislation this past week, against his mother's wishes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ovedya Posted March 21, 2005 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 375 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 11,400 Content Per Day: 1.44 Reputation: 125 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/30/2002 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/14/1971 Share Posted March 21, 2005 I just read this. Interesting factoid about Dubya. When he was governor of Texas, George Bush signed into effect a law that grants hospitals the right to cut off life support in cases that are even more controversial than Schiavo's. Under Texas law, hospitals can cease to feed a patient whose prognosis is so poor that further care would be futile if that patient has no way to pay his or her medical expenses. A baby was pulled of life support under that legislation this past week, against his mother's wishes. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Where did you read this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts