Let her go....

I was going to write an article on the same subject. I wonder if she's an only child? I wonder why her parents are so reluctant to let her go. It's been years. And once you marry, unless you specifically state legally, your spouse is your next-of-kin, right? I don't see where the issue is here. The whole point of marriage is leaving your parents house to make a new house, and now this poor woman's husband just doesn't want her to be humiliated and alone anymore...

So...I agree wholeheartedly, K...let her go. It's long past time.

I recently had a conversation with a coworker about cancer...I don't even know if I'd do chemotherapy...for any kind of cancer...hmmmm...

dharma,

I agree with you and disagree at the same time.

I have studied this case extensively, and Mr. Schiavo does not appear to have Ms. Schiavo's "best interests" as his prime motivation. In fact, there have been some suspicions of even more underhanded actions, BUT I will give Mr. Schiavo the "innocent until proven guilty" standard I so cherish and not go into detail on those; they're readily accessible on the internet at any rate.

That being said and done, I also don't feel the parents in this case have her best interests as their prime motivation. Their religious beliefs, coupled with their understandable love for their daughter, I feel, cloud their thinking in this matter.

In short, it's a VERY difficult case.

That being said, I agree with your thesis, with a qualifier I will add shortly. She needs to be "let go" at this point, as any possibility for rehabilitative therapy is probably not there AT THIS POINT (although there was strong evidence it was at an earlier point; Mr. Schiavo ABSOLUTELY REFUSED to allow any of the money that was AWARDED TO MS. SCHIAVO (NOT his money; he was awarded money in a separate settlement) to Ms. Schiavo's rehabilitation.

The qualifier I will put on "Let her go" is: not this way. Starving to death (which is what will happen if the feeding tubes are simply removed) is a slow, agonizing death that cannot under any circumstances be considered "death with dignity". Ms. Schiavo deserves a comfortable, dignified death...after all, she has been through much without having a voice to speak for herself.

Oh, for the wisdom of Solomon on this one.

Y'all ought to be ashamed with the way you judge others like that. Dismisses life with a wave of dismissal. "Their religion is making them torture their poor retarded daughter". How rude. Maybe their religion gives them hope www.lifenews.com/bio697.html for their child. And are you guys talking about the same person here? She's not dying or on life-support. She is unable to eat on her own so she has a feeding tube to give her food. To stop that she would starve to death. That's it. She's not brain dead and on wires and tubes 24/7. Do you people think she is or something? That she's lying comatose? She smiles for f**k's sake. What's the matter with you people? Mind boggling how anyone can make such comments and think they're being righteous about it, that what they say is part of some good philosophy or something. How's this? We all moan about Jews being starved to death in Auchwitz during the Holocaust I'm certain. Why would you be wanting to do it to anyone else? Ever? Starvation! No food or nutrients! Long slow death. And consider this husband is banging on another woman! You're supporting and defending a man who puts his married penis inside another woman's vagina, for pleasure, while at the same time he's trying to get his wife to die a painful death. Way to go ladies. Make your momma's proud.

Ms. Schiavo deserves a comfortable, dignified death...after all, she has been through much without having a voice to speak for herself

Yes, she absolutely does.  I'm sure if she was able to articulate she'd be dismayed at what her life has become...not such much because she's 'disabled' but because her parents and her husband have made her name and her existence synonymous with court cases and fighting.

Marcie:  D, my brother, my physician and my attorney all have copies of my advance medical directives.  There is no question about what i want to happen to me if I should be declared 'in a persistent vegitative state'.

Reiki House, have yourelf a nice trollhouse cookie for that wonderfully intellectual response.  Just so you know, smiling doesn't mean squat.  There was a case a couple of weeks ago of an Egyptian child who was born with a partially formed twin conjoined to her at the crown.  The partially formed twin consisted of a head and a torso, and was deemed incapable of independent life because it's brain wasn't fully formed.  This 'head' blinked and smiled...yet it wasn't what the doctor's called 'alive'.

Teri Schiavo's body tried to die 15 years ago.  She has no promise of any semblance of a 'life', she is merely existing.  I know that I wouldn't want to live like that....

She's not brain dead and on wires and tubes 24/7

Yes, she is.  She can't eat properly, she can't take enough nutrients in orally so she's tube fed what basically amounts to an adult version of infant formula.

I looked her up online here because I didnt know everything that has been going on. All I knew was that she was a vegetable and her husband wanted to take out her feeding tube while her parents fought against it. Some of what I found is disturbing. For example:
"In 2003, a court-appointed guardian for Terri wrote that during the years-long legal struggle, the Schindlers had ''voiced the disturbing belief that they would keep Terri alive at any and all costs," even if that required amputation of her limbs. "As part of the hypothetical presented," the guardian's report stated, "Schindler family members stated that even if Terri had told them of her intention to have artificial nutrition withdrawn, they would not do it.''"
Here is the link to the rest of the article.
Link
In my opinion after reading several articles on what is going on is that neither side has her in mind. They are both thinking of only themselves. She doesnt have any chance of recovery. "Neurological tests and brain scans indicate that her cerebral cortex is now principally liquid."
If I was in that condition, I would want to be taken off of everything. Even if that means slowly starving to death. From the sounds of it, that would be better than existing in a shell of my former self. My husband is 27 and I'm 25 but we both have living wills saying that we dont want to be kept alive by machines or if we are in a vegative condition. We both believe that if you dont have any quality of life then essentially you have no life at all.
I hope I'm never put into a spot where I have to make this decision for any of my loved ones but if I ever am, I pray to God that I have the courage and strength to do what I believe they would want me to do and not be selfish like Terri's husband and parents are.

(good link, nw)
lesson: write your living will today.

people can live fulfilling lives while ingesting food through a g-tube or other nutrient routes. people can live fulfilling lives if they receive constant med through an iv. people can live fulfilling lives with severe brain damage, memory function loss, paralysis, degenerative disorders and more.

this isnt one of those people.

recently, i ran the foster care system for adults with developmental disabilities in my county. though it takes some time, you learn absolutely and fundamentally why some clients need to have a dnr (do not resuscitate) in their files. a person can be held in a state that resembles life for a long time. a person can exist in a state of constant pain for a long time, too, without life support, and without any higher cognitive functions. without any consciousness, a person can "live" for many years in pain, never having any awareness of existence. and without a responsible guardian or a dnr to prevent existence in certain states, you can be screwed.

next: reiki, im sure you realize that your absurdly hyperbolic analogy between teri and interned citizens of concentration camps is offensive, ridiculously illogical, and absolutely ignorant. someone wanting to remove the "pain" button (part played by her husband) from someone without any cognitive functions (teri) is not in any way similar to someone wanting to dehumanize, torture, kill--and in fact annhilate an enire race, if possible--(part played by the nazis you mentioned) other people (jews, in this scenario).

as far as your finding faith in religion take goes, reiki: well la-di-da. go ahead and find faith in religion. im all for it. but dont you think it's just a tad hypocritical to believe that using scientific medicine to hold an unaware, uncognitive being to life is a way of finding god, when at the same time you believe that using scientific medicine to determine that "teri" is no longer alive is shameful and disgusting? in teri's place is a kneejerk mannequin that experiences only pain. i have a feeling your god isnt smiling.

thanks for the article, dharma. excellent work.

tbt

"In 2003, a court-appointed guardian for Terri wrote that during the years-long legal struggle, the Schindlers had ''voiced the disturbing belief that they would keep Terri alive at any and all costs," even if that required amputation of her limbs. "As part of the hypothetical presented," the guardian's report stated, "Schindler family members stated that even if Terri had told them of her intention to have artificial nutrition withdrawn, they would not do it.''"

That's scary.  That her parent's would go that far to keep her body alive (her mind is obviously long gone) suggests some kind of mental instability or psychological illness to me.  They're not thinking of her, they're thinking of themselves. 

TBT's right, that was an excellent link!

lesson: write your living will today.

Yes, please, please do!  And while you're at it, write a probate will....especially if you have kids.

 

recently, i ran the foster care system for adults with developmental disabilities in my county.

TBT, you fascinate me.  You're really quite the rennaisance man...the more I discover about you, the more there is to like.  Would you consider emailing me?  I think that we'd have a ton of stuff to talk about...

a person can be held in a state that resembles life for a long time. a person can exist in a state of constant pain for a long time, too, without life support, and without any higher cognitive functions. without any consciousness, a person can "live" for many years in pain, never having any awareness of existence. and without a responsible guardian or a dnr to prevent existence in certain states, you can be screwed.

Yes, a person can exist in limbo like that for years and years.  Not having a DNR or advance medical directives (another term for living will) can leave you at the mercy of your next of kin or guardian....so please, please do yourselves a favor and get one!

thanks for the article, dharma. excellent work.

Aww....thank you!

I don't know anything about this particular case, but I do know I would not like to be in this position. Dharma, you have provided me a very timely reminder. I must sit down and redo my will so that this never happens. As far as I'm concerned, if I am brain-dead, then I'm already gone in all but physical form. I would only see any action to help me die as a compassionate act.

hey dharma,

i tried figuring out your gmail, but leave it to this tech-deficient talent to have no idea how to make it work.

i have a normal yahoo account attached to the contact me link. if you write a letter there, i can probably respond (unless theres some other gmail prohibition in effect that everyone in the world knows about but me . . . yet again . . . .

tbt

Sorry if this is re-iterating what has been said, but I feel the need to say it myself.

"She can't walk, talk, feed herself, dress herself...she appears to smile and react to her family, but no-one can be sure that's what she's doing because she cannot communicate with them. She has the mental capacity of a newborn infant, and the physical strength to match. She's not living, she's simply existing..."

Those are your values and your take on her internal mental processes, which you simply can't know. You can be trapped in such a state and be unable to function normally outwardly. According to you, this isn't living. Maybe even according to most people. That doesn't mean we have the right to impose our values on her and her family.

"Her husband wanted to let her go, to give her a little dignity...but her folks and even Jeb Bush have fought to keep her alive, albeit artificially. Instead of letting nature take it's course, they've been using artifical measn to keep her alive for 15 years now."

Is feeding someone "artificial"? This isn't a comatose "Christopher Reeve" type that will die the moment they are unplugged. This is starving someone to death.

The husband has moved on and even had kids with another woman. Some say he has a life insurance policy on Terri, and that's why he is so urgently wanting her to die. Who knows.

I don't think this is as easily decided as some people think, though. There's a big difference between pulling a plug and seeing someone immediately die, than what amounts to locking them in a room with no food and water until they do...

Baker,

Yes, and there are depositions that have been around for some time that will come out in the guardianship hearing...Mr. Schiavo is not the saint he's presenting himself to be, let's just say that much!

Personally, I agree Mr. Schiavo should be able to get on with his life. And I don't disagree that it might be time to let go of Ms. Schiavo. But, as I said, and as you reiterated, NOT THIS WAY!

I have known several people of MUCH higher levels of functioning that have been on stomach tubes due to inability to swallow. Being on a stomach tube is NOT the same as being on a respirator, and I don't find anything REMOTELY humane in starving this woman to death...if anything, the fact that she doesn't have a voice to protest makes the suggestion even more cruel.

im not sure if you are responding to me or someone else. i suggested that living with g-tube would never eliminate the possibility of living a fulfilling life, nor would a developmental disability, nor would a mental health condition.

we're talking about an unconscious existence, however. someone who unconsciously reacts to certain stimuli is not conscious. still, she registers and stores pain.

perhaps if humane options were legal, there be wouldnt be such a visceral response. you just cant feed a a system of unconscious nerve endings and call it medicine. if there was hope that she could develop conscious cognitive ability in the future (and im NOT asking for a full recovery) that would be one thing--a very, very different thing.

tbt

"we're talking about an unconscious existence, however. someone who unconsciously reacts to certain stimuli is not conscious. "

How do they know that, given that we know that people can be aware and "normal" internally and yet be physically prevented from expressing it by such damage?


here's a question. If she isn't "aware", if she is basically a vegetable on aut-pilot, what exactly is harmed by leaving her as she is?

Can someone in the state dharma and others are supposing be "suffering"? Seems like a no-win proposition. If she is trapped in a broken body/mind, cutting of her food intake could be just the opposite of what she might want. If she isn't "aware" on any human level, then the whole arguement of "sparing her pain", etc., seems to fall flat, right?

Where do you draw the line? Are people who are severely mentally retarted and who can't communicate and feed themselves inhumanely kept alive?

What's the difference between a food tube and a nurse with a spoon?

no she's not on 24/7 tubes and life support. That's a lie. And smiling, if it's your precious child dharma, would mean more than what you would call 'diddly squat'. You should think as if it were your loved one and not as someone looking for a poster-girl for a slow starvation death. Hey ma'am. Can I take your children and lock them in a room so I can starve them to death? Of course you won't let me. Why would you let someone do that to someone else? And why no comments about how he's banging on another woman while trying to starve his wife to death. Her folks want to care for her, but he won't let them. What motivates that I wonder? Smiles mean more to me than they do to you. That's reassuring for my own psyche, but shitty for whoever you have to care for.

Reiki-House try reading the article that I linked to earlier here is is again. Link Here is another quote for you if you dont like that article: "A persistent vegetative state, which sometimes follows a coma, refers to a condition in which individuals have lost cognitive neurological function and awareness of the environment but retain noncognitive function and a perserved sleep-wake cycle. It is sometimes described as when a person is technically alive, but his/her brain is dead. However, that description is not completely accurate. In persistent vegetative state the individual loses the higher cerebral powers of the brain, but the functions of the brainstem, such as respiration (breathing) and circulation, remain relatively intact. Spontaneous movements may occur and the eyes may open in response to external stimuli, but the patient does not speak or obey commands. Patients in a vegetative state may appear somewhat normal. They may occasionally grimace, cry, or laugh." Here is the rest of that article:
Link
Do you really think that someone who was so full of life {from what I've read} would chose to exist in this condition?

no she's not on 24/7 tubes and life support. That's a lie.

Ok, so MSNBC are lying then? If I were you I'd call them and tell them that.

And why no comments about how he's banging on another woman while trying to starve his wife to death.

The fact that you seem to be ignoring is that she's been like this for 15 years. if he had started this affair, or as you so succinctly put it 'banging' another woman 15 DAYS after her illness then I could see why you'd be upset about it. 15 years is a long, long time.....and I don't blame him at all for moving on with his life. If I were in Teri Schiavo's condition I wouldn't blame my husband for getting on with his life either.
As for the monetary gain that everyone's got their knickers in a twist over...that's pretty much been depleted, thanks to legal fees and hospital bills.
NW, thanks for pointing out that article again!

again, nebraskawoman, if she is really in a vegetative state, do you think she is "suffering" in this state? Suffering like vegetables suffer?

If you are right, then there's no harm leaving the parents with their daughter. If you are wrong, then you don't have the right to choose to take the life of someone who might otherwise exist in there.

BakerStreet: Your right if she is not suffering then maybe there is no point in leaving her the way she is. I'm looking at this whole situation as what would I want if I was Terri. I personally would not want my body existing in the way she is. If you are religious then think of it this way. Her spirit/soul {whatever word you prefer} is stuck in that shell that is laying in that bed. The only way that her spirit can be put to rest is to let her go. By postponing this you are postponing her going to heaven. I personally think that after 15 years her spirit needs to be put to rest. There is nothing left for her here. Both sides are thinking only of themselves and not of what she might want. I enjoy life and I dont ever want to be remembered as a poor sick woman who is laying in a hospital bed without the ability to communicate to others or the ability to do anything. If it was you what would you want BakerStreet? Would you want your family to spend 15+ years watching your body waste away, spending thousands upon thousands of dollars on medical and legal bills? I wouldn't.
{You are welcome, dharma. There are more articles out there that are just as good. If you google her name.}

"Your right if she is not suffering then maybe there is no point in leaving her the way she is."

You misunderstand. If she is a "vegetable", with no awareness, just mechanical function, then there is no "she" there to suffer. If you say she is "brain dead", then why should anyone be concerned if her parents want to keep her alive, as long as the bills are paid?

The husband has moved on, moved in with another woman, and had kids. The parents aren't burdened by caring for their daughter. The husband doesn't visit or have any responsibility whatsoever.

So, if she is what her husband and those who agree with him says she is, then she can't be "suffering", and she can't be mourning the state she is in.

"If it was you what would you want BakerStreet? Would you want your family to spend 15+ years watching your body waste away, spending thousands upon thousands of dollars on medical and legal bills? I wouldn't."

What "she" would want is moot, because there is no longer any "she" if she truly resides in a "brain dead", vegetative state. To me, it wouldn't matter what they did with me, since I would no longer be "me", any more than my corpse is "me".

I have a feeling when all is said and done there will be a lot to learn about this guy, and why he has spent so much time and resources trying to get them to stop feeding her.

I've thought quite a bit about this. I understand he feels that she is never coming back and that she is dead...her body is being kept alive against all odds. If she can think and feels trapped or pain, it sucks for her becaue they can keep her heart beating for years. She still has a long time to exist on this plane. So I sypmathized with him and his wish to take her of the feeding tube.

Of course, I didn't think of HOW she was going to die. How long will it take for her to starve to death? Yikes. That does seem a bit harsh and I understand the parents' reluctance to let the removal take place.

So if this is purely a selfish thing, he doesnt' want to be responsible for her and her parents disagree, then he should be given a divorce and they should be responsible for her and pay for her care.

This hasn't happened, so I must conclude that he honestly wants to "free" her from the shell of a body. Too bad there isn't a gentler way of doing it....starvation seems harsh.

I've thought quite a bit about this. I understand he feels that she is never coming back and that she is dead...her body is being kept alive against all odds. If she can think and feels trapped or pain, it sucks for her becaue they can keep her heart beating for years. She still has a long time to exist on this plane. So I sypmathized with him and his wish to take her of the feeding tube.

Of course, I didn't think of HOW she was going to die. How long will it take for her to starve to death? Yikes. That does seem a bit harsh and I understand the parents' reluctance to let the removal take place.

So if this is purely a selfish thing, he doesnt' want to be responsible for her and her parents disagree, then he should be given a divorce and they should be responsible for her and pay for her care.

This hasn't happened, so I must conclude that he honestly wants to "free" her from the shell of a body. Too bad there isn't a gentler way of doing it....starvation seems harsh.

"Starve to death" is kind of misleading, I guess. She will more likely "thirst" to death, since I assume they'd cut off liquids, too. Granted, it won't take nearly as long. I think the longest you can go with zero liquids is like 3 or 4 days.

Still, not any way you want to go if you look into the effects of it. This is one of those times the pro-Euthanasia folks could step up and make a point. But, then, we'd have to be honest and say we are killing her, instead of being silly and saying we are "letting her die".

In essence, what is being done to her could be done to anyone that can't feed or care for themselves. The level of "vegetation" is completely arbitrary, I think. There are peopel who are severely mentally retarded that could be "cut off" according to this standard, imho.

bakers question:

here's a question. If she isn't "aware", if she is basically a vegetable on aut-pilot, what exactly is harmed by leaving her as she is?

my previous response, made prior to the question:

a person can be held in a state that resembles life for a long time. a person can exist in a state of constant pain for a long time, too, without life support, and without any higher cognitive functions. without any consciousness, a person can "live" for many years in pain, never having any awareness of existence

after re-reading, i realize this was a bit vague and could use some filling out.

nerve endings receive stimuli that will be interpreted if the path to the central nervous system (and the central nervous system itself) is intact. a chemical reaction beginning at the nerve ending and proceeding to the central nervous system (or, occasionally, the spinal cord) returns to the source and also seeks out any other related location. the peptide producers and receptors learn the reaction once it happens, and if the reaction is triggered on a regular basis, then the system becomes deeply ingrained not only in the instinctual nervous system reaction, but also in the producers and receptors of the proteins themselves.

suppose someone makes a habit of sticking a hand into the flame of a blowtorch while enjoying a favorite supper. the chemical processees supporting each response will overlap, because the body's chemical climate will be the same. if this someone does this long enough, then any enjoyment of food will inspire the production of proteins made to respond to an emergency pain situation.

it's like depression--or drugs for that matter. your body's response to the environment is a result of a learned chemical climate. your body gets used to producing certain feelings.

one would like to think that as rational, conscious beings, we have the ability to affect that climate. we can change our lives and our perspectives and our environments if we can identify unproductive, addictive climates that our body establishes.

so this is what i mean, when i say without any conscious existence, without any cognitive functions, a person can remain "alive" for a long time, while only registering kneejerk reactions. therefore:

(baker:)

If she isn't "aware" on any human level, then the whole arguement of "sparing her pain", etc., seems to fall flat,

unfortunately isnt true. traumatic experiences are stored elsewhere than conscious awareness, and this is what makes them so difficult to root out.

i strongly believe euthanasia to be an appropriate response to certain conditions. i understand very well that g-tube feeding is NOT the same as life support. and i also agree that simply removing this g-tube is a ridiculous pass at ending this woman's pain. unfortunately, the best methods are illegal.

i also want to stress that i dont have the answers here--who does? the feverish response i made to reiki rose from a need to point out that his (her?) absolutist position was grossly unfair and uninformed . . . and to annhilate the obscene, illogical analogy drawn between mr. schiavo and nazi instigators.

i will not quote the final summation made by reiki, but i have to assume that rational beings can understand the difference between passionate response and blathering tripe.

the simple fact is that this woman cannot speak for herself and she does not have a living will. let's suppose that no one can know whats going on inside her head. there MUST be some point when, if a decision has already been made to nourish and maintain her existence, the rest of us must get together and make our best judgment . . . and in order to do that we need our best understanding of her chemical reality and, once we understand that reality to the best of our abilities, then with an open mind, with empathy, and without any selfish traps in our hearts, we need to try to put ourselves in her position.

tbt

" . . . and in order to do that we need our best understanding of her chemical reality and, once we understand that reality to the best of our abilities, then with an open mind, with empathy, and without any selfish traps in our hearts, we need to try to put ourselves in her position. "

You are overlooking the fact that at this point, there is no SHE. According to your own arguements she is just a step or two away from brain death. Given that, I don't see how you guys, according to your own standards, can keep saying "her position" or "Teri's been trying to die for years. ".

You are defeating your own arguements. If she is at the state that you guys seem to be making her out to be, then there is simply no SHE there. There is no cognitive conciousness according to you. How then, can you make this an issue of "humane" death or stopping her suffering?

You can't. This is a husband that for some reason, some concrete reason, refuses to get a divorce, move on, and leave her parents in peace. He has moved in with another woman, had kids, but that legal standard of marriage, not moral standard, not religious principle, that LEGAL standard is vastly important.

This doesn't need to go beyond "who has the right to decide" to me. This man isn't her husband, and hasn't been for years. He doesn't visit her, he doesn't give her any daily care, he doesn't offer any decision making for anything but stopping her feeding.

I defy you to tell me this is "logical". If she is existing in the state you claim that she is, then all this humane "put her out of her misery" stuff falls flat.

I'm sorry, T.T, I can't put myself in her position, because according to you there is no longer any "her". Just parents who care for her, and have faith that there are possibilities, and a husband whose only interest in her is her LEGAL life/death status. Read what you like from it.