« Remembering Terri Schiavo | Main | Texas Futile Care Case Continues »


March 31, 2007

Thanks for Remembering ...

Topics:

Theresa Marie Schindler December 3, 1963 - March 31, 2005 - The Terri Schindler-Schiavo Foundation

Terri Schiavo: Victim of Lethal Bigotry - Freedom Eden

Terri Schiavo: Finding the Answers - BlogsforTerri

The dehydration death of a nation - Bobby Schindler for WND

Terri Schiavo Passed Away 2 Years Ago Today - Proecclesia

Death Does Not Have The Last Word - North Country Gazette

I remember Terri. Do you?? - And Rightly So

Remembering Terri Schindler-Schiavo - Life at the Frontier

TERRI SCHIAVO'S NEXT TO LAST DAY: A LOOK BACK, "I WANT TO LIVE" - LifeNews

Priest who was with Schiavo says society has it all wrong - WorldNetDaily

A Worthless Life? - Dakota Voice

Remembering Terri - A Good Choice

A Sad Anniversary - Thoughts of a Regular Guy

Fr. Pavone Comments on Terri Schiavo Anniversary - Christian Newswire

Source: Prolifeblogs.com

Posted by tim at March 31, 2007 2:25 PM


Articles Related to :

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:

Comments

Here are some thoughts on the Schiavo case:

Starving and Dehydrating someone to death regardless of the person's condition (not dying) and whether the practice is done by the removal of feeding tube or by natural means is a cruel inhumane process ON ITS FACE.

When I say ON IT FACE, I mean the whole sense of it.

Starvation and Dehydration is something that we can't do to a dog, a deathrow imate or terrorists.

And yet the practice of starvation and dehydration was done to Terri.

The fact that feeding tube was simply removed changes little.

Terri was denied food and water.

Terri's death was caused by starvation and dehydration.

It should also be noted that the provision of food and water is a basic humanitarian right.

Children in other countries die from lack of food and water.

Billions of dollars are sent each year to give these children food and water.

The provision of food and water is also a basic need under Maslow's hiarchitory of Needs just like shelter.

So ON THE FACE OF IT, starvation and dehydration whether it be by removal of a feeding tube or by natural means is a inhumane process.

Terri's was subjected to this inhumane process.

Terri was not dying and would have lived another 10 years.

Terri was deprived of the basic humanitarian right to food and water (feeding tube or natural means).

This is not the same as witholding a ventilator or kidney dialysis as those are true life support and person's death are caused by organ failure.

In addition, starvation and dehydration is rather prolonged process as we have seen.

Terri death by a removal of feeding tube fell under the preumbra of starvation and dehydration, an act that is cruel and inhumane.

On a final note, There is nothing in the legal record to indicate that Terri ever wanted a feeding tube removed.

The decision was made on a "Quality of Life" accessment in which court took Terri statments and based on her quality of life assumed that she would not want a feeding tube.

The veracity of Terri's wishes never indicated she didn't want a feeding tube or to be starved and dehydrated to death.
--------------------------------------------------
Why Terri's death was a form of Euthansia:

Euthanasia Expert Shows Reasons Terri's Death was Euthanasia rather than Natural Death

LONDON, March 31, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Special to LifeSiteNews.com by Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

The death of Terri Schiavo - Euthanasia or Natural Death?

The tragic death of Terri Schiavo has reignited the Euthanasia debate in the United States and Canada.

Everyday we witnessed new media reports about Terri Schiavo. We heard conflicting commentary from bio-ethicists, physicians, and religious leaders as to whether dehydrating Terri was euthanasia or simply allowing natural death to occur.

To intentionally dehydrate and starve Terri Schiavo to death was euthanasia and I will clearly explain why.

Euthanasia is an intentional act or failure to act which causes a person's death for reasons of "mercy."

Therefore euthanasia is an intentional act or failure to act to cause death.

If a person is dying or nearing death their body often begins to shut down, meaning the veins and circulatory system are becoming unable to circulate fluids and food. To withhold fluids and food from a person who is dying or nearing death is not euthanasia but rather accepting the limits of life.

Terri Schiavo's body was not shutting down and she was not otherwise dying. Withholding fluids and food from Terri Schiavo was not an acceptance of the limits of life but rather an intentional failure to act in order to cause her death. This is euthanasia.

Some bio-ethicists said that providing fluids and food to Terri Schiavo only artificially prolonged her life and possibly caused her pain and suffering. They claimed that the intention of withholding fluids and food was palliative and not euthanasia.

If a person's body is shutting down then they become unable to benefit from fluids and food. Continuing to provide fluids and food to someone who is nearing death and who's body is shutting down often causes pain and discomfort because the fluids and food have nowhere to go.

Providing fluids and food for Terri Schiavo was of benefit to her. Terri's body could assimilate fluid and food without any problems. Therefore withholding fluids and food from Terri was not palliative. In fact, since Terri was not otherwise dying withholding fluids and food would cause pain and suffering.

Some bio-ethicists stated that providing fluids and food by tube to Terri Schiavo was extra-ordinary medical treatment and therefore always optional.

Terri Schiavo was not in need of medical treatment and her feeding tube (PEG) was inserted and effective. She didn't need medical support, only fluids and food. Anyone, with minimal training, can feed someone in this way. There was nothing extra-ordinary about the care Terri was receiving.

In cases of euthanasia, the intentional act or failure to act is the cause of the person's death. If the act or failure to act does not cause the death of the person then it is not euthanasia.

In the case of Terri Schiavo, her death was caused by dehydration. Terri was not dying of another cause, before having her tube was withdrawn she was not imminently dying. Therefore the withholding of fluids and food for Terri Schiavo was the intentional cause of her death. This is euthanasia.

Some bio-ethicists have said that Terri was so brain damaged that she was already dead. They claimed that the feeding tube was artificially keeping a dead person alive.

This is a dangerous statement which is based on a eugenic ideology. Nonetheless, Terri was cognitively disabled but she was not brain dead. To say that her life is not worth living is to say that all people who have a severe cognitive disability are not worth living.

Many commentators expressed that Terri's wishes should be respected. Since Terri's husband claimed that Terri would not have wanted to live this way, therefore dehydrating Terri to death is simply respecting her wishes.

There should be presumption in favour of life. I recognize that you can never force anyone who is competent to receive anything against their will, but when a person is incompetent to make decisions for themselves we believe one should always be provided the basic necessities of life, including fluid and food.

Terri Schiavo's death is a case of euthanasia because her death was intentionally caused by dehydration for reasons of "mercy."

Hopefully Terri's death will result in legislation being enacted to protect people who are cognitively disabled from similar acts of death by dehydration.

Posted by: James at April 1, 2007 9:33 PM

The Ulitmate Evolution of Terri's so-called death wishes:

In July of 1997, Michael's mom dies (Michael in his book get this wrong and says June of 1997). Michael claims this was the trigger event for seeing through Terri's wishes (But this was not true, as Michael started to follow out Terri's wishes nearly 2 years before in late 1995.).

He says that after his mom's death, sometime in the August or September of 1997, Michael goes and talks to Felos and tells him he wants carry out Terri's wishes.(Again, this is false. Michael was communicating with Felos through Bushnell nearly 2 years before and later was signing contracts with Felos several months before his mom's death).

Felos tells him to talk to other family members about Terri wishes. Michael really doesn't do this because he and Felos feels his claims are adaquate.

A little later Felos, sends a letter to Bob Schindler informing him that Terri's life support is going to be removed in due time. Felos makes a key point that he is presently performing an investigation on who may have an insight into Terri's wishes regarding the feeding tube removal.

In May of 1998, Michael presents his formal petition to disconnect Terri's feeding tube based upon wishes known only to him.

Lets back up. 3 important points have illustrated. First Michael was told to talk to his family members. Second Felos was performing an investigation and third there is no word from Scott and Joan. From apparently the timespan of August 1997 to May of 1998 (nearly 10 months) Scott and Joan Schiavo must have been completely silent and obilvious to Terri's situation. Even though Joan claimed she was Terri's best friend, she appears to be a black sheep at this point.

Scott's claim that he didn't tell Michael because he was in denial doesn't seem to make sense here. It appears Michael had taken severe legal actions to end Terri's life but both Scott and Joan seem to be out of loop for 10 months and never feel the need to speak to Michael about Terri's wishes.

GAL Pearse conducts his investigation and is told by Michael Schiavo that he is the only one that knows Terri's wishes. Pearse submits his reports and says Michael's claims are not credible.

So from May of 1998 to December of 1998 (7 months) Scott and Joan still seem to be completely obilvious of the situation and are silent on the Terri matter.

In September of 1999 nearly a year later, Michael finally reveals that Scott and Joan know Terri's wishes.

This is after nearly 10 months after the GAL told Michael his claims were no good. Michael reveals that he just found these wishes a few weeks before his depo and that they actually told Felos their insights into Terri's wishes.

Judging from the timeframes. It appears that Scott and Joan were completely obilvious to the events surrounding Terri Schiavo. It seems that Michael had not contacted Scott and Joan in nearly 2 years.

Scott and Joan's claims sound very suspect given the timespans involved.

No proof was ever provided to prove these claims and it was all hearsay.

Both Scott and Joan were never disposed by the Schindler's lawyer and their testimonies seemed unfair given this fact. The lawyer didn't have any basis in which to impeach the witnesses.

While the court claimed it had clear and convincing evidence, the court never had any corlaborative proof to Michael, Scott, or Joan's claims.

No single claim was ever backuped by more than one person.

Scott and Joan apparently should have voiced their insights into Terri's wishes at critical times but didn't.
1993 - UTI incident refusal - Michael writes in his book that he had made the decision to let Terri go. Where were Scott and Joan?
1994 - All through the early guardianship battle, Scott and Joan never say anything even though Michael has given hint that Terri would not want to live in her present condition.
1995/1996 - Again a another UTI refusal takes place but again the nursing home stops Michael. Scott and Joan still remain silent on Terri's alleged wishes.
1997 - Micheal's mom dies - He says this what made him proceed with tube removal - Where were Scott and Joan then?
1998 - Michael submits his petition to remove Terri's feeding tube - Again where were Joan and Scott?

December 1998 - GAL Pearse says Michael claims aren't credible - Where were Joan and Scott?

1999 - Suddenly Joan and Scott pop from no where and state they know Terri's wishes.

What's important to remember is that Scott and Joan both admitted under oath the they never revealed or talked with Michael about their insights to Terri's wishes over the 9 year period.

While, it perfectly logical to assume that Scott and Joan never mentioned anything to court until they were called as witnesses in the 2000, giving from the timeline that we have seen is makes no sense that Scott and Joan did not mention anything to Michael over the years even instances after instances of life ending actions and decisions were made by
Michael in attempt to honor Terri's so-called wishes.

Michael was even told to ask Scott and Joan (family members) but didn't.

Felos was even looking for people who might have known Terri's wishes in 1997. Where were Scott and Joan?

Finally, Both also admitted that both they stayed informed of what was happening with Terri. Michael even stated under oath that he had talked about Terri's situation with his inlaws.

They are also very suspect based on comments made by Scott Schiavo in various interviews:"One doctor said,'Mike, you know what? There's nothing else we can do....Why don't you just let nature take its course?' And Mike wouldn't do it".

This is totally inaccurate. Michael proceeded to let Terri go in 1993 via the UTI refusal (Michael even writes about this in his book.) The only reason why he couldn't do was because the nursing home and the Schindlers stopped him.

On a final note, the Clear and Convincing Evidence Standard is very high. Its hard to believe that it took Felos 2 years to find Scott and Joan Schiavo and when Felos found Scott and Joan Schiavo is was done by making a simple phone call.

Posted by: James at April 1, 2007 11:38 PM


Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)


Remember me?