Guest guest Posted October 16, 2003 Report Share Posted October 16, 2003 , " Lorenzo " <lorenzo1@w...> wrote: Within all the yelling and accusations and reporters comments I still can not understand why the girls Father could not take Her home and care for Her there? The reports never seemed to make that clear. Does anyone know? Lorenzo Hi Lorenzo, Maybe I'll play the devils advocate here to present another potential side to the story. I am not trying to decide the case one way or another, just present some other considerations. When two people get married the rights of the parents are surrendered or superceded by the marriage bond. Also there is a money issue here. Terri's spouse was awarded 300,000 and another 700.000 for her care. You must remember that she has required intensive medical care on and off since 1990. A good portion of this money is already gone. I've cared for many a patient that cost 200,000 a year ot more! I've seen first hand what the financial costs are. Eventually Terri is likely to become a ward of the state because few people can afford to maintain such care. It is likely that the media is playing up money issues. Often during marriage people discuss what would be their preferences if such a terrible thing happened to them as happened to Terri. I view the bond of marriage as sacred as well as legal and the trust and confidence shared between two people as binding, although not always in the eyes of the court, other family members or society in general. In our culture we have a legal document called a Living Will in which one can state what their preferences for medical treatment would be if they came into a state in which they could not speak for themselves. Unfortunately Terri never had a living will and this case should encourage all of us to obtain one an fill it out. It could save your spouse, your parents, the state and many a doctor from trying to make very difficult decisions for you. Having a living will is an act of self empowerment. Most people don't get around to it until its too late in which case the family is out looking for a Power of Attorney so they can legally make dicisions for those who no longer can. In cases like this the power of attorney naturally goes to the husband unless he relinquishes it or looses it in court. If it were me I would expect my husband to enact for me my desires and wishes that I have discussed with him over the years and I would expect my family to honor and support him in the decisions that he makes for me and if my family did not support my husband I would expect him to stand up to them. I would not want a feeding tube to prolong my life if I were in the condition that Terri is in. I do not view it as natural but merely the act of medical technology that does not know of spirit, soul and the nature of life as I know and recognize it. If a living will had been written Terri would likely be long gone if it were truly her documented wishes not to have such a life prolonging apparatus. Terri's husband is asking the court to enact what he has stated is Terri's wishes. In this case, at least according to media reporting, ( and the truth is difficult to figure out) her spouse is asking us to acknowledge the bond and trust that they had shared in their marriage. Through out current medical practice the spouse is asked for guidance in the medical care of a wife or husband when they can not speak for themselves. In general the opinion of the spouse is respected, and horored by the medical profession. Only in extreme cases as this kind with the family embittered and battling for power does it come to a court issue. I have seen more than one feeding tube not initatied or discontinued though the wishes of the family with support of the doctor. Once a feeding tube is in place it is much harder to get rid of because the battle between the family starts. I also saw one mention in reports of Hospice involvement in this case, In which case Terri has already been deemed as terminal within 6 months by hospice physicians and it is not unusual to withdraw feeding tubes. One might also consider just what a forced feeding is. In medical terms and in palliative care a forced feeding is the unnatural feeding of an individual who can not ask for food and is not inclined to ask for food combined with the inability to attempt to feed oneself. Under these conditions hospice will not offer to or initate the feeding of the terminally ill. Under such circumstances the patient is not starved to death but rather the natural decline is allowed to progress so that life may end speedily without further sufferings from disease or medical complications. Hunger is not experienced by people who are in an active state of decline. http://host85.ipowerweb.com/~friendso/vid.html The above web page has videos of Terri that show her condtion and level of mentation and participation in the world. IMO, after 22 years of caring for people in the home care setting, in residence facilities and in acute care setting I do not think that Terri will ever get better. There is no right treatment that will significantly improve her mental and physical state after 12 years. This kind of brain damage is not reversable. The above site also has a blurb from a girlfriend of Terri's spouse who speaks of him in a very degrading way. I view this with a grain of salt. Who knows what her grip is? Also, you might consider the loss, stress, anger, fear, grief, resentment and toil this man has been through since 1990. Things said in confidence to a confidant are often just expression of stress, greif and resentment for the course their life has taken and are not always intended or acted on as said. These are the emotions in a mixed bag that most family members endure when confronted with a life time of care for a newly disabled person. It does not mean that they do not do the things that are necessary. Whatever the case may be it surely is not as the media presents. Best, ARROW Adapted from the Associated Press, Dec 25, 2002 The following is the timeline in the case of Terri Schiavo, who first collapsed and fell into a coma in 1990. The conflict between Terri Schiavo's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, began in 1993, and continues to this day. The court bhattle began in 1998, when Michael Schiavo petitioned the court to remove Terri Schiavo's feeding tube. - Feb. 25, 1990: Terri Schiavo collapses in her home. Doctors believe a potassium imbalance caused her heart to stop, temporarily cutting off oxygen to her brain. - Nov. 1992: Terri's husband, Michael, wins malpractice suit against doctors who he say misdiagnosed his wife; jury awards more than more than $700,000 for her care, Michael receives an additional $300,000. - Feb. 14, 1993: Terri Schiavo's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler have a falling out with Michael over the malpractice suit money and Terri's care. - July 29, 1993: Bob and Mary Schindler file petition to have Michael Schiavo removed as Terri's guardian. The case is later dismissed. - May 1998: Michael Schiavo files petition to remove Terri's feeding tube. - Jan. 24, 2000: Trial begins over whether to remove feeding tube. - Feb. 11, 2000: Pinellas-Pasco Circuit Judge George W. Greer rules feeding tube can be removed. - Jan. 24, 2001: 2nd District Court of Appeal upholds Greer's decision. - March 29, 2001: Greer rules feeding tube to be removed at 1 p.m. April 20. - April 18, 2001: Florida Supreme Court refuses to intervene in the case. - April 20, 2001: U.S. District Judge Richard Lazzara grants the Schindlers a stay until April 23 to exhaust appeals. - April 23, 2001: U.S. Supreme Court refuses to intervene. - April 24, 2001: Feeding tube is removed from Terri Schiavo. - April 26, 2001: Pinellas-Pasco Circuit Judge Frank Quesada orders doctors to reinsert Terri's feeding tube; the Schindlers pursue lawsuit against Michael Schiavo, accusing him of committing perjury by saying his wife did not want to be kept on life support. - April 30, 2001: Lawyers for Michael Schiavo file emergency motion with an appellate court asking for the court to order removal of Terri's feeding tube. - June 25, 2001: 2nd District Court of Appeal hears arguments in case. - July 11, 2001: 2nd DCA sends case back to Greer, ruling that Terri can't be taken off life support until after July 23. - July 18, 2001: Schindlers ask Greer to let their doctors evaluate Terri before making a final decision on removing the feeding tube. - Aug. 7, 2001: Attorneys receive Greer's order that the tube be removed Aug. 28. - Aug. 8, 2001: Schindlers repeat request to Greer to allow their doctors to evaluate Terri. - Aug. 10, 2001: Greer denies the Schindlers' evaluation request, as well as their request to remove Michael Schiavo as guardian. - Sept. 26, 2001: Schindlers' attorneys argue before 2nd District Court of Appeal, citing testimony from seven doctors who say Terri can recover with the right treatment. - Oct. 3, 2001: 2nd DCA delays removal of feeding tube indefinitely. - Oct. 17, 2001: 2nd DCA rules that five doctors can examine Terri to determine whether she has any hope of recovery. Two doctors are picked by the Schindlers, two are picked by Michael Schiavo and one is picked by the court. - Feb. 13, 2002: Mediation attempts fail; Michael Schiavo again seeks to be allowed to remove Terri's feeding tube. - Oct. 12, 2002: Weeklong hearing begins in the case. Three doctors, including the one appointed by the court, testify that Terri is in a persistent, vegetative state with no hope of recovery. The two doctors selected by the Schindlers say she can recover. - Nov. 12, 2002: The Schindlers' attorney says medical records suggest Terri's condition may have been brought on by physical abuse, and asks for more time to get more evidence. - Nov. 22, 2002: Greer rules that there is no evidence that Terri has any hope of recovery and orders feeding tube to be removed Jan. 3, 2003. - Dec. 13, 2002: Circuit Judge George W. Greer stays order to remove feeding tube on Jan. 3 until the 2nd District Court of Appeal in Lakeland reviews the case. A date has not been set for the court to hear the case. - Dec. 25, 2002 The 2nd District Court of Appeals agrees to consider appeal by Schiavo's parents. Schedules oral arguments for April 4. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.