Terri Schavio Dies. Opinions?

Home  \  Off Topic  \  Terri Schavio Dies. Opinions?

If you ever watch the news im sure you know the story of Terri Schavio. The wmen who was brain dead for 15 years but kept on life support. But If you don't know here is a rough story of what happened.

Terri had anorexia, a fact known to her husband, and went on a type of birth control that when mixed with anorexia has dissastorous results. She had a stroke one day while her husband was at work and laid there for the better part of 6 hours until her husband came home from work. He called an ambulance she was taken to a hospital and declared brain dead. The upper part of her brain was basically mush, and she was only alive because her lower part of her brain, which controls involantary movement, breathing, heartrate, etc., was the only thing keeping her alive. Her husband sued the doctor who prescribedd the birth control pills to her and used the money to keep her alive for 15 years. Meanwhile, he starts seing another woman, falls in love and has two children with that woman. But he can't marry her because technically hes still narried to terri. She, obviously, couldn't sign any divorce papers. So her husband decided to pull her feeding tube out and let her die. Soon the family of terri started telling him to put the tube back in and a national dabate insued.

So, Here is my question to you guys:

Did the husband do right in taking the feeding tube out?
Do you still consider Terri a person even though all her upper level brain functions were completly dead? Or is she just a vegetable?
What would you have done in her husbands position?

And all that other jazz.

posted by  Zalight

I think this was overplayed by the Media. It was none of our business and I am just happy to see that once a decision was made and after starving for over a week and a half that she has finally passed away. May she rest in peace now and let the world stop intruding.

posted by  boothe

Im kind of mixed on the whole situation, but I do agree with this ^^

posted by  Satty101

Did the husband do right in taking the feeding tube out?
No, he wanted her dead so he could walk off with a 'clean' conscious, and marry his new wife.
Do you still consider Terri a person even though all her upper level brain functions were completly dead? Or is she just a vegetable?
She was breathing on her own and did have brain waves, she was alive.
What would you have done in her husbands position?
Transfered 'ownership' of her to the family or the state


His claim is that this is what she would've wanted, but I disagree with that, as I believe she was slowly improving, as was not a vegetable.

posted by  Godlaus

Slowly improving? Over 15 YEARS she hadn't shown marked improvement. There's being alive and there's quality of life.

He wanted her dead? He had 15 years to act on that. She probably shouldn't have been kept alive that long. This is one of the legal rights a spouse has over blood relatives. I've already told my wife that if I were in that condition, just pull the plug.


There's a reason for DNR orders.

And with this legally done, it's time to get Dr. K out of jail.

posted by  ChrisV

Yea, I agree with ChrisV. I mean, She was still in the same situation she was 15 years ago. I don't think she was ever going to improve.

I also have told my family if something like that comes up, for example, Im in a coma for a year and the doctors say it doesn't seem like im coming out of it, to let me die.

I also think Kevorkian should be let out of jail. Its not like he was a murderer, He was providing a service people wanted. For example, my aunts father in law had diabetes his whole life, the one day his doctor told him they were going to have to remove his foot, and possibly his whole leg because of complications with diabetes. That night he went home, didn't take his insulin shot and told his wife to bake a choclate cake. He ate the whole thing by himself, and went into diabetic shock that night. Is his wife guilty of assisted suicide? No, He wanted to die rather then live through the pain of acute diabetes and put a financial strain on his family. Kevorkian should be let out.

posted by  Zalight

Excuse me then, I believe she had shown some improvement.


and that's where the division of democrats and republicans lies.

posted by  Godlaus

Sure is easy to judge when you've never been faced with the situation, isn't it?

posted by  ChrisV

You really have to ask yourself what idiots allowed her to become a food to shiet factory in the first place. Of course we all know that lawyers are to blame because they will sue any doctor who does the old fashioned thing like helping them die peacefully in their sleep, but that could easily be solved by promising any lawyer who sues, an extended stay of a few years in hospital hooked up to sheit tubes upon reaching old and infirmed status = see how they like it.

posted by  Wally

I know. What a whore. That's my biggest problem with this. It was probably the right decision to let her go. But for the crazy whore who had already had two children with another woman without being respectful enough to divorce his wife first to be the one making it, :puke: A 25% devoted "husband" gets to decide over her 100% devoted parents. I feel bad for them, but...

"to everything (turn turn turn) there is a season (turn turn turn)
and a time to every purpose under heaven

a time to be born, a time to die [...]"

(Jerry Singer)

posted by  JaneiR36

What exactly is that supposed to mean? I am a strong conservative and Republican and I'm glad to see her out of her misery, or at least her miserable existence. She had no quality of life, her "improvement" over the last 15 years was questionable at best and she was only "alive" based on the technicality that her heart was beating and she was breathing.

My problem with the entire circus that revolved around her situation is the fact that she was essentially starved to death. I believe it would have been much more humane to euthanize her after the decision was made to let her die. I hope that something good comes from this, that being that everyone draws up a living will so that they and their families are not put in this position.

R.I.P. Terri Schiavo, may eternity treat you better than your life on earth.

posted by  vwhobo

i very much agree. not a single person in this world knows what Terry wanted, it should have been left to her family and not the husband to decide, and if letting her pass was the decision i mean WHAT THE **** , starving her to death is more inhumane than any of the BS they were arguing about. Humans what a bunch of disgusting animals we can be. as for me, DNR! thanks

posted by  BanffAutoSpa_ap

Sorry, I have to disagree. If "not a single person knew," then the family has no more right to say what happens than the husband, as they knew no more than he might have. But I'm willing to bet that he knew more than they. My wife knows more about me than my family, and I know for a fact I know more about her then they do. As a legal adult, my marriage contract is a legally binding statment of responsibility, as such, my wife and I have control ofver teh other. that'w what marriage laws are FOR, so that ifI die, my WIFE says what to do with my estate, and is my beneficiary, not my folks, and vice versa.

If she had, say, quickly died initially from natural causes, should her family get to come in and take what was hers and control her belongings, or her husband? Should they be able to say, "well, she was living in teh house, so we get to live ther in her place." Should they be able to say, "we get her car, and any insurance money, and half the house." Should they be able to say, "we get to take her children."

No, the family can care, and grieve, but they have no f*cking legal right to her unless she gets divorced or specifically, legally, names them as guardians. Without that legal stament, that marriage contract IS the legally binding statement of who's in charge in case a spouse ends up like this.

posted by  ChrisV

From a legal expert:

"Judge Greer held a full trial in this case to determine how Terri would choose to exercise her privacy rights. Michael was on one side; Terri's parents were on the other. Both sides brought witnesses and experts. In the end, the judge ruled that Terri would not wish to continue receiving nurishment and hydration through a surgically implanted tube.

Trials like this, where someone's life may literally be on the line, are held every day in courtrooms across the state and around the country. Most involve crimes, but not all. In every case, lawyers marshal witnesses, present evidence, and make arguments to further their clients' interests. The decisions made by the judge or jury may affect whether someone lives or dies, whether someone spends his or her life in prison, or whether someone will have to pay another debilitating sums of money.

Whether as a party, a witness, or a juror, those who have the opportunity to participate in trials should take their roles seriously, offering their best efforts to further the search for truth. At the same time, the public should realize that once a trial is over, the decision is made, and it was made based on the evidence. Appeals are almost always available, but if the judgment is affirmed, only very rarely will there be an opportunity to get a new decision based on evidence not previously presented."

"You're left with a woman who suffered a heart attack 15 years ago, who essentially died but was resuscitated, though not entirely. Her brain had suffered enormous damage from the heart attack. As time passed, her brain further deteriorated -- to the point where much if not most of her cerebral cortex (the portion of the brain that controls conscious thought, among other things) was literally gone, replaced by spinal fluid. Doctors hired by Terri's husband say the deterioration of Terri's brain left her without thoughts or feelings, that the damage is irreversible, and that Terri's life-like appearance is merely the result of brain stem activity -- basically involuntary reflexes we all have. An independent doctor hired by the court reached the same conclusions. Doctors hired by Terri's parents did not dispute the physical damage done to Terri, but they claim there are new therapies that could improve her condition. In two separate trials, the trial court found such claims of potential improvement to be without merit. Terri's body continues to function without her cerebral cortex. "

"You're left with a husband who lived with his in-laws following Terri's heart attack, who apparently provided care and therapy for years but who later came to believe Terri would never recover. He believes she would not have wanted to be kept alive in this brain-degenerated condition by a surgically implanted tube. He is apparently willing to continue his fight to achieve what he believes Terri would want despite ridicule, hatred, expense, and threats.
"

"You're left with a public that is much confused. Some see video clips of Terri moving, appearing to make eye contact, and making sounds, and they assume such are the product of conscious thought -- that Terri's "in there." Some believe Terri's husband has been motivated by money. Some believe he is a bad person because he has taken up with another woman and has children with her. (JaneiR36?) Some believe Florida's judiciary is corrupt or inept, to the point where death threats have been made against the trial judge. Some are sad that families would fight like this. Some believe that removing Terri's feeding tube would cause her pain and is inhumane (I'm no doctor, but the medical information I've seen on this subject uniformly says the opposite.) Some are disappointed that the law does not allow someone in Terri's condition to be kept alive perpetually if a family member is willing to care for him or her. Some believe no life should be permitted to reach an unnecessary end unless irrefutable proof, or at least written proof, shows the person wanted things that way."

"Michael Schiavo did not make the decision to discontinue life-prolonging measures for Terri.

As Terri's husband, Michael has been her guardian and her surrogate decision-maker. By 1998, though -- eight years after the trauma that produced Terri's situation -- Michael and Terri's parents disagreed over the proper course for her.

Rather than make the decision himself, Michael followed a procedure permitted by Florida courts by which a surrogate such as Michael can petition a court, asking the court to act as the ward's surrogate and determine what the ward would decide to do. Michael did this, and based on statements Terri made to him and others, he took the position that Terri would not wish to continue life-prolonging measures. The Schindlers took the position that Terri would continue life-prolonging measures. Under this procedure, the trial court becomes the surrogate decision-maker, and that is what happened in this case.

The trial court in this case held a trial on the dispute. Both sides were given opportunities to present their views and the evidence supporting those views. Afterwards, the trial court determined that, even applying the "clear and convincing evidence" standard -- the highest burden of proof used in civil cases -- the evidence showed that Terri would not wish to continue life-prolonging measures."

"the Second District's first decision in the case used these words to describe Michael's care for Terri:


Theresa has been blessed with loving parents and a loving husband. Many patients in this condition would have been abandoned by friends and family within the first year. Michael has continued to care for her and to visit her all these years. He has never divorced her. He has become a professional respiratory therapist and works in a nearby hospital. As a guardian, he has always attempted to provide optimum treatment for his wife. He has been a diligent watch guard of Theresa's care, never hesitating to annoy the nursing staff in order to assure that she receives the proper treatment.
Recently, Michael received an offer of $1 million, and perhaps a second offer of $10 million, to walk away from this case and permit Terri's parents to care for her. These offers, assuming there were two, were based on a misunderstanding of the situation here. Michael lacks the power to undo the court order determining Terri's wishes and requiring the removal of her feeding tube. He did not make the decision and cannot unmake it. The court made the decision on Terri's behalf. Nonetheless, Michael apparently rejected each offer"

BTW, both offers were for more money than what would be left of the $1milion dollar settlement he recieved on Terri's behalf for the malpractice case he filed against the doctors that failed to diagnose her bulemia, that was in part to blame for her condition now. He spent most of that money so far on her care. But we have people like Jane calling him only 25% caring... Puleeeze.

posted by  ChrisV

So, Here is my question to you guys:

Did the husband do right in taking the feeding tube out?
Do you still consider Terri a person even though all her upper level brain functions were completly dead? Or is she just a vegetable?
What would you have done in her husbands position?

1. Yes, the tube should have been taken out years ago, think about it would you want to see your husband/wife suffer like that for 15 years- NO!!!!!

2. Yes, Terri is still a person reguardless of her mental state, it is up to the people who love her to have the sheer courage and compassion to ease her suffering

3. If my wife was in that condition, I would have let her go, granted I would wait a year or two to see if recovery was an option. If you truly love someone than watching that person in that state would almost kill you.

4. Everybody's argueing over the politics and who was right, the husband or the parents, instead of playing the blame and politics cards, people should learn form this one great lesson. That lesson is to talk to your loved ones and express you wishes about situations like this. I have stated in a legal doccument that if I become incapactitated I shall not be re-vived, If I am in a vegitated state let me die of my own accord, no feed tubes or machines to support my life.

5. Learn and teach, and know one thing, there is a women now at peace after 15 years of suffering. By blasting this all over the media and bringing in politics it just takes away the one main question that everyone failed to ask, what would terri want !!!!!!!!

posted by  ode94

He waited many years, and then got legal advice. When it became clear that her cerebral cortex was gone, it was clear that no recovery was possible. Two complete trials agreed.

posted by  ChrisV

Things we have learned from this case....


1) Jeb Bush, George W. Bush, and Tom Delay are all world renowned neurologists.

2) 22 successive court battles that all ended in exactly the same way means there is something wrong with the courts, not the Schindler's case.

3) Mike Schiavo is after money, which is why he turned down 1 million dollars and 10 million dollars to sign over guardianship.

4) Congress and the State Legislature of Florida has nothing better to do than pry into the private medical affairs of others.

5) Pulling life support is bad in Florida when authorized by the legal next-of-kin, but pulling life support is good in Texas when you run out of money and the mother pleads not to pull the plug on her baby.

6) Medical diagnoses are best performed by watching highly edited videotape made by Randall Terry rather than in person by trained physicians.

7) Minimum wage making nursing assistants are more qualified to diagnose a persistant vegetative state than experienced neurologists.

8 ) Cerebral spinal fluid is a magical potion that can mimic the entire functions of a missing cerebral cortex.

9) 15 years in the same persistant state is not really enough time to make an accurate diagnosis.

10) Jesus was wrong when he said that a man and woman should leave their parents and cleave only to each other.

11) Marriage is the most sacred of all unions, except when it isn't.

12) Pro-lifers are really compassionate people which is why they are hoping that Michael Schiavo dies a horrible painful death.

posted by  ChrisV

Perfectly put !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

posted by  ode94

:clap: ChrisV

I especially liked the part about the Pro-Lifers...Don't you just find it funny that Pro-lifers are usually the ones supporting the death penalty?

posted by  Zalight

It's about darn time if you ask me...seriously no one should have to suffer 15 days or so without water...

At least everytime I turn on the news that darn story won't always be on...seriously every single frickin tiome I turned on the news it was "Terry Schivio feeding tube removed" or "Terry Schivio trys to battle it out it court" got really stupid if you ask me...

posted by  PeteBobJoe

first of all, She has no cerebral cortex. In case you didn't know, the cerebral cortex controls consciousness, perception, memory, and language. it was replaced with spinal fluid. they could have cut her into pieces using a rusty blunt knife. she was not improving, nor was she going to. her husband was her legal guardian according to the law, he had the ultimate decision, he should have made it sooner. she may have appeared to be able to respond to her environment, but those are nothing more than nifty reflexes, about the equivalentt of a venus fly trap or clam. her organs should have been harvested.

ChrisV put it perfectly.

posted by  shev

Your Message