Ovedya Posted June 24, 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 June 24, 2005 The question was: If there were clear instructions from Terri for no support measures in Terri's case would you support her being disconnected from the feeding tube? Yes or No? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The question is pretty much moot, since I probably would not have heard anything about it. The tube would have been disconnected 10 years ago, and nobody would have known any different one way or another. The fact that there was no written DNR, and the court basically went on hearsay testimony is what made this an issue. Now let me ask you a question: Michael Schiavo sued the hospital that Teri was admitted to for malpractice. He won that lawsuit. At the end of that case, before the court and jury Michael stated that he would use the award to keep Teri alive, and to seek out any and every means to find a cure for her condition. However, in a span of only a few years he petitioned to have teh court remove her feeding tube for the first time. Without making any presumptions as to his motivations, do you believe it was immoral for Michael to break the promise he made before several witnesses? Since Michael did not kwwp his promise, wasn't he obligated to give the money back or put it into a foundation, or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerran Posted June 24, 2005 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 22 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 335 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 10 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/13/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/27/1975 Share Posted June 24, 2005 (edited) You're still beating around the bush here. I asked a simple yes or no question. It was hypothetical in nature, but it should be something you should be able to answer. It's not moot, and it does go to the heart of the issue so, Yes or no? Without making any presumptions as to his motivations, do you believe it was immoral for Michael to break the promise he made before several witnesses? Since Michael did not kwwp his promise, wasn't he obligated to give the money back or put it into a foundation, or something? To my understanding he tried every know therapy for more than 5 years before giving up, including experimental brain treatment in California. When this whole ordeal with the lawsuit was all said and done there was essentially no money left. But to answer your question, if his wife had been allowed to die and then he had taken the money after what he promised, that would have been wrong. Edited June 24, 2005 by Cerran Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest charlie Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 Oveyda, you really need to go to that site I gave you on this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catsmeow Posted June 24, 2005 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 439 Topics Per Day: 0.06 Content Count: 7,315 Content Per Day: 0.93 Reputation: 356 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/21/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted June 24, 2005 This whole topic makes my blood boil so I won't go there. I'm honored that God placed me in a position to care for grossly disabled children some of which I had to diaper, some which had feeding tubes and all of which were 100% blind. I cared for and "attempted" to rehabilitate ALL of these permanently disabled students. Some people might simply have the state pull the plug on these kids....afterall, they're just a burden on society. Well, they WEREN'T a burden to their parents and they weren't a burden to me, their teacher. My conscience is clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apothanein kerdos Posted June 24, 2005 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 331 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 8,713 Content Per Day: 1.20 Reputation: 21 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/28/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted June 24, 2005 Okay, lets make some more false hypotheticals. If the moon was made of ribs, would you eat it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerran Posted June 24, 2005 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 22 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 335 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 10 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/13/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/27/1975 Share Posted June 24, 2005 If the moon was made of ribs, would you eat it? If I could do so without changing the tides, yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerran Posted June 24, 2005 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 22 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 335 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 10 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/13/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/27/1975 Share Posted June 24, 2005 (edited) Noone can answer a simple yes or no question and I'm the master of spin? I will answer your question. If Terri had stated in a living will she did not want to be sustained by a feeding tube, I would have no problem with it being removed. My problem with this whole matter is she had no such document and therefore I believe we must err on the side of life. The judges decision Terri wanted to die was based on statements by her husband who had long since abandoned her. Also as one person wrote, the money he used for legal fees were obtained under false pretenses and he should have to give it all back, even if it means him going bankrupt in the process. I do want to agree with Charlie on one thing, something I rarely do. He is right that we should be able to discuss such matters, no matter what side of the issue we are on without having a thread deleted, unless their is profanity included in the post. I am interested in what he has to say even though he is in my opinion usually wrong. Finally! Someone answers the question, thank you Butero. Edited June 24, 2005 by Cerran Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qun Mang Posted June 24, 2005 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 116 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 678 Content Per Day: 0.09 Reputation: 15 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/26/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted June 24, 2005 The question was: If there were clear instructions from Terri for no support measures in Terri's case would you support her being disconnected from the feeding tube? Yes or No? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I believe the point is moot as well, but not for the reason Ovedya gives. It's moot because a feeding tube should be irrelevant to the question of life-saving measures or being artificially kept alive. The feeding tube was merely a convenient way of feeding her, much as an IV would. Her own body was keeping her alive- she was not on an artificial respirator. Pulling the feeding tube did not cause her body to shut down- the lack of water did, same as for you and me if we stopped drinking. I said the feeding tube should be irrelevant. I truly think this judge made a bad decision based on emotion- putting himself in her place. Yes I could be wrong on his motive, but nevertheless I stand by the belief that this was a bad decision. The judge might as well have said Dr. Kevorkian was okay to do what he did a decade ago, euthanizing patients who asked for it. That's really the next step in this whole affair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catsmeow Posted June 24, 2005 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 439 Topics Per Day: 0.06 Content Count: 7,315 Content Per Day: 0.93 Reputation: 356 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/21/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted June 24, 2005 As one who has a progressive debilitating disease, I have certainly given this some thought. When I have one of the MS attacks there are sometimes days I am unable to eat very much due to the problem of choking because the muscles in my throat do not work real well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kansasdad Posted June 24, 2005 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,227 Content Per Day: 0.18 Reputation: 6 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/10/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/19/1964 Share Posted June 24, 2005 I'm sorry but this was between a husband and a wife. I only know if I was in that condition I would not want to be kept alive under any circumstances. Her parents loved her and that is why they lived in a dream world that she would recover. The autopsy put a end to that belief or should have. However her father said the coroner was wrong and she could have recovered. It's called denial and it happened to all of us at one time for another. It's over please just let the matter rest. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Your assumption to fact are wrong. Please read my post #27. It is not over. We will live with the consequneses and they will not be good. What has happened here is vile and there is no other word for it. The courts have clearly stated that some life has worth and other life does not, and the courts have the right to make this decision. There are many many disabled idividuals who would take great offense to this. Our culture of death has taken one more step down a terrible slope, and it is unfathonable to me how anyone could in any way justify killing someone by de-hydration. What happened here was sick. Kansas Dad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts