Oh no I am not saying I know better I am just saying what I had heard on the news. But you know with all the conflicting stories who really knows for sure.

Erica I am confused. You say you and your husband agreed that if ever in that situation then you would want to be let go but yet starvation would not be something you would want. Well then help me understand what would you want? Because see here is a woman who may very well have felt the same exact way. So if starvation would not be an option what would then? Terri Shaivo may not have wanted to live like that but she also may not have wanted to be starved to death either.

My heart goes out to the family.  Terri is a peace now. 

I do have a question for anyone who would like to try and answer this.  Terri was brought to this condition by anorexia nervosa, isnt a anorexics worst fear being fed? if so why would they not have tried that route to get the tube back into her.  Input would be appreciated.

I haven't followed this case super closely, but will comment on what I know.

As far as common law marriage goes, any eligible person can enter into a common law marriage.  Michael was not eligible because he was still legally married to Terri.  Why someone could not step in for her (in this situation where the accuser is also the perpetrator, so to speak) and file for divorce on her behalf is beyond me.  By having total control, Michael was able to commit adultery on a woman who could not make a decision on whether or not she wanted to remain in that marriage.  My guess is that Terri would have wanted him to move on, have a family, and be happy if something like this ever happened but only after divorcing her first.

As far as what happened to her, well, thats a double edged sword.  You see, in the medical field there is something called "quality of life" (QOL).  IN QOL, we ask ourselves if this person could be released from the medical facility what kind of QOL would they have?  Would they ever walk? Talk? Could they feed and care for themselves? What are the chances for a full or partial recovery? And so on.  If a person had been in this state for a year or two thats one thing, but 15 years is absurd to me.  With the advancements we've had in modern medicine in the last 15 years and she hadn't improved any more than she had, then its pretty clear that she isn't going to.

What this leads to is a decision that must be made.  Yes, her parents wanted to care for her but could they properly care for her in their own home or somewher other than a medical facility?  If she was allowed to stay 'alive' in the medical facility, who pays the bills?  Should taxpayers pay for a family's personal decision to keep a dying woman alive - a woman who would not ever improve?  If her parents could care for her then do they have the resources to buy the things she needs for her medical care?  How long before their resources ran out?  What would happen then?

Some see this as putting a 'dollar amount' on a human life, but in the medical field it is being realistic about what can and cannot happen.  What happend to Terri happens to cancer patients every single day in this country - every single day.  It's just that they don't get the media attention because the majority of the time the family is willing to let their loved one 'go'.

Terri had not improved after 15 years.  She was not going to.  A decision had to be made and it had to be made for many reasons.  The civillian world does not look at things from a medical perspective, they look at them through their own perspective.  That is normal and natural, but not always the best.

Now, from what I gather, Michael is the one who made the decision, not the doctors here, so all of the above may not apply.  Maybe Michael finally learned the true meaning of QOL and he knew Terri would never have it if he divorced her and released it to her parents.  He knew his way was the only way to release her.  Maybe Michael, although with another woman (which I believe was encouraged by Terri's parents) really believed in his marriage to the point of 'till death do us part'.  It sounds twisted while knowing he hasa a new relationship, but what is to be expected after 7 years of your wife being in her state?  We live in a different world than we use to.  Maybe the last thing he could give Terri was the keeping of that one wedding vow.

There are just so many ways and views to look at this from, however, regardless of what I have said, I do not agree with how it was handled.  I think in a situation like this, her physician should have been the one to make the call and he should have done it years ago.  She should have been fed food and water and allowed her body to pass on its on - in its own time. 

Homeostasis is what keeps our bodies in 'balance'.  When the homeostasis of our bodies gets off balance, it will either make us hurt or feel sick so that we seek medical attention to 'help it' or it will make us die.  Sometimes, medical treatment is not enough to balance out the homeostasis and we die anyway.  However, either way, homeostasis will still balance out or make us die - even with food and water.  Terri should have been fed and given water and let the homeostasis that was affected by her condition be the deciding factor of her death - not starvation.  By starving her, that made her bodies homeostasis even more off balance which sped up her death - in a very cruel way.

Her bodies homeostasis would have never balanced out and she would have died in her 'own time'.  Whether it be 10 days or a month.  Withdrawing medicines to allow the body to die is common practice in severe conditions like this,  See, the medicines and machines kept her homeostasis balanced just enough to keep her alive, but it was not completely balanced so that she could lead a normal life.  Withdrawing the medicines would have tilted the balance scale so that she could die on her own.  It didn't take starving her, and starvation - is literally what happened.  I have no doubt, that withdrawn from medicines only - she would still be alive.  Probably not for long, but she would still be alive.  And that would have been a much more 'normal' death (by alllowing her body to shut down from reasons associated with her condition and not reasons induced by a physician) than starving ones weak body into its death.  Just plain cruel in my eyes, even when looked at through the eyes of a person who works in the medical field.

P&D- Yes my DH and i did make that agreement with each other. But hopefully we wouldn't let it get to the point of living several years with feeding tubes and etc.. I want to be let go if there is no hope. I am not sure how since i am not sure of the options. I am sure there obviously aren't many since Terry's husband did it in the way he did. Normally my husband and i talk about worse case scenerios though, like being on life support. But if it came down to it and there was no other choice than starvation (like Terry's case) then I would want Tom to make the same choice as Terry's husband. I do think it is a horrible way to die but I would just want to be "let go" like someone else said, it is about quality of life. This is all just my opinion on what I want if i my life is ever in this scenerio though.

Ansy--good argument.

Here's another way to look at the situation: what if Terri had been a dog instead of a human?  I imagine that most of us would agree that both keeping a dog with no chance for recovery alive via a feeding tube and allowing a dog to starve to death would be cruel.  Most of us would probably agree that the kindest thing to do would be to put the dog down.  Why do we have more mercy for our pets than we do for our family members?

I think you are right with that one, P&D. I heard that she could have had therapy a long time ago but he denied her of it. Also heard that she could have eaten normally but he also denied her of that and said to put her on a feeding tube. I've also heard that they used to get her up and have her go outside and talk to her but he also denied her of that as well. I just think he is the worst kind of scumbag. IMO. I think she could have had some sort of QOL, had he let her have therapy and regular (pureed) food and all that. But he absolutely wouldn't. So, I think he did that so she would stay incapacitated enough for him to call all the shots and move on with his life and start a new family and all.
But, on the other hand, I would have wanted to die, had I been in her current situation. I would not want feeding tubes and other kinds of tubes and machines keeping me alive, especially for that long. 15 years is just cruel to me, especially since it was apparent that he was not going to let her have therapy and all that. I also think it was cruel to starve her to death, but, like Erica said, if that was the only option, then I'd want to do it.

This may sound heartless but if a horse breaks its leg we shoot/kill it.  My foster dog, Mei Ling had distemper so severe she suffered neuro damage. She was concious and responded to her name but the vet said she would get worse (the nodding, the tongue hanging out, the blinking eye) she suffered damage. It is a horrific story because I thought by vaccinating her, spaying her I helped her...in essence it was too much for her distemper ridden body and it escalated the distemper ravaging her body.

I cried. I cry as I write this. It hurt so bad because she was my first and last foster. I saved her from Miami Dade Animal Control and then I had to euthanize her three months later.  I feel like hell.  It has been almost a year and I still feel horrible about it.  I wont foster animals taken from Miami Dade Animal Control because of this.  I cannot take another animal dying on me.  Shame on the heartless owner of Mei Ling and shame on Miami Dade Animal Control for not having the decency to provide vaccines or whatever they need to do to all animals they bring in (the shot where they put the yellow stuff in their nose)...They are too cheap to do this...

Which brings me to....

If the point was to starve Terry in order to speed up her death because the point is it is time for her to die...why didn't they just inject her with insulin or whatever formula in other words why couldn't she have been "humanely euthanized".

This case really is strange to me.  I guess because I am not a deeply religious person. I believe in God but I do NOT attend church and reject organized religions (I wont bore you with the details)...but my point is.

I have had to "put down" two dogs. I cried oh my gosh I cried and it hurt beyond belief but it was the right thing to do for my pets.  They were suffering.  Is it ok for us as humans to suffer but animals we control. I guess we dont euthanize humans arguably Terry Schiavo was euthanized but we don't because it probably would get out of control.  Some bloke would say he euthanized his 80 year old mother who was often seen grocery shopping but he euthanized her because he simply did not want to be bothered with checking on her.

Perhaps we cannot euthanize humans because humans would get out of control.  We can control animals.

I am going to wipe my eyes now.

 

I miss Fifi Lee and Mei Ling.  Gone but never forgotten......

 

 

 

All of you have very intellectual insight on this matter.   I was going to write up my complete thoughts on this, however it will need to wait for later today for I need to go to work (sorry)

I work in a facility that houses people in her very condition and see on a daily basis what they are like, I for one could not be the one who decided to stop what they(in their own mind as life)are giving to sustain breath.

Be proud of who all of you are, you seem to all be great people.   Have a nice day

Chat with ya later.  

Chris

quote:

---

Originally posted by: moencat
"Sorry..I'm having such a hard time keeping my mouth shut and I'm really trying...
 
 
P&D...Again, I come to this from a different perspective because I work with patients like this every day (including treating their swallowing disorders and making the recommendations for modified diets, feeding tubes, etc.).  You suggest that she be given a pureed diet...have you ever eaten all of your food pureed?  And solid foods are not the only thing to consider...liquids have to be modified as well to protect patients from aspiration and pneumonia.  So think of this tray coming to you three times a day....a lump of ground up chicken, mashed potatoes, applesauce and your drink thickened to the consistency of nectar, honey or even pudding.  I won't even go into what it may be like PHYSICALLY for her to be fed this fare...one meal could take ALL day and then you have to consider a feeding tube because what she takes in really can't sustain her.  There's so much more to consider...."

---

My mother is a speech pathologist and has done a great deal of work with patients on feeding tubes - teaching them to eat, swallow, etc. She worked for 36 years at a state institution for the mentally retarded, and after retirement did contract work with stroke and brain injured patients.

I have worked with the same types of patients in a direct care capacity, some of whom lived in the same institution where my mother worked). I have cared for patients a lot less responsive than Terri Shaivo. I also took care of my grandfather as he was dying from bone cancer. He had suffered off and on for some time from swallowing difficulties (not related to his cancer), and when his cancer became terminal, I allowed Grandy's doctor to intimidate me into enrolling him in hospice. The hospice nurse informed me that he would no longer be allowed to receive his occasional as-needed IV fluids, and that he would be allowed to dehydrate to death should he have another episode. That horrid woman is lucky to be alive, and would not be had my husband not grabbed me before I could reach her. I snatched him out of hospice and re-enrolled him in home health almost before you could blink. When Grandy died, it was from the natural progression of his cancer, and he was comfortable and cared for.

Back to feeding tubes, Moencat.....I know what you mean about a person needing all day to eat one meal......I saw a lawyer on CNN (I think) who is handicapped and practices disability law. She said that for many, feeding tubes can add to the quality of life, since it allows them to spend their days doing more than struggling to eat enough. Not to mention the fact that when one has a tendency to choke, it's pretty d#$%n scary to try to swallow anything. If things came to that for me, I think I'd rather be tube fed than have to mix my water with "Thick-It" and then eat it with a spoon.

What kind of work do you do? Are you a SLP like my mother?

Dorothy