A close family member (we'll call this person "Z") has been in a 'permanent vegetative state' for 4 years so I feel I do know to some extent what I'm talking about.

first: In any medical case you will get conflicting opinions. I can't see that Z has any responses other than reflexes to sounds, light, hunger, pain etc. These are completely automatic body responses, nothing else. However Z has carers who are sure they can see 'something'. I don't know who is right but I can't help thinking they are wishing to see something.

second: Very few people are going to choose to let their life-partner die without a great, great deal of thought. Bear in mind the people left behind who then have to deal with the guilt of 'killing' their loved one.

third: No one, and I mean NO ONE would ever choose to live in the manner of someone who is in this sort of state.

The only way I can deal with Z's condition is to consider that they have died and all that is left is their body. It is unbearably sad for me to even consider that there is even a spark of life, let alone consciousness, left that is suffering in this terrible condition.

A permanent vegetative state is what is says, it is not something you get better from.

If Terry Schiavo meets the legal definition of permanent vegetative state then she should be allowed to complete the process of death, for she has already gone a long way down that path. Her husband is someone to be pitied and supported, not attacked.

Part 1
The following is an email is one of several I forwarded about Teri’s case. It seems no one has bothered to consider who is the real guardian!

Meaning, that all legal decsion of recent may be invalid.

Terri is a living being, not brain-dead or in a vegetable state as reported, and to do onto her may be used to do onto others and we end up with disaster!

From: "G. H. SCHOREL-HLAVKA" <INSPECTOR-RIKATI@SCHOREL-HLAVKA.COM>
Subject: Terri's DE FACTO Guardianship since 2003 already!
To: jeb.bush@myflorida.com

Sir,

I understand from media reports in the commonwealth of
Australia that the State of Florida is seeking “GUARDIANSHIP”
over Terri.

I know basically nothing about USA law, but commonsense tells
me that when you overruled the Court and ordered the tube to
be reinserted in 2003, you basically then overruled the
GUARDIAN ship of Terri’s husband also, at least implied doing
so. Therefore, the recent proceedings involving him as a
GUARDIAN must be deemed to be miscarriages of justice, as
your 2003 intervention effectively was a declaration that he
was not acting as a proper guardian to pursue Terri to be
starved to death, and hence from that time the State of
Florida had a DE FACTO guardianship over Terri.

As such, I view, as a governor you have every obligation to
immediately take charge and ensure reinserting the feeding
tubes for Terri and to appeal all decisions made since your
2003 intervention as being legally floored as Terri’s husband
no longer could have been deemed to be the legal guardian of
Terri.

You cannot override the intentions of the guardian and in
particular where it concerns the starving of a human being
and then still allow such a person to remain a guardian.

Being far away in the commonwealth of Australia, and without
having all legal resources available to me, and neither
having all information published about Terri available to me,
nevertheless it is and remains my view that your intervention
in 2003 effectively ended Terri’s husband’s guardianship, and
it is just that the Court may never have considered this.

Part 2;
Again, I cannot accept that legally a guardian could be
deemed to remain a guardian where his intentions are contrary
to that of the State of Florida, as expressed by the Governor
in 2003 to reinsert the feeding tube.
As it is the State of Florida who provided “guardianship”
then in effect your intervention in 2003 must have been
deemed that the State of Florida effectively terminated the
guardianship held by Terri’s husband.
Perhaps, it might be wise to overnight, so to say, pass
legislation to that effect, as to give the message to the
world that this is what is applicable when the governor steps
in for and on behalf of the State of Florida.
Again, when a governor steps in with a “pardon” for a
convicted person sentenced to death, then
this “automatically” overrules and Court decision and hence
no one could re-litigate the crimes the person was given
a “pardon” for.
Therefore, I view, that where the governor, so to
say, “pardoned” Terri in 2003 from dying from starvation –
and not even having committed a crime, then this effectively
overruled any court decision and no Court ever could
therefore re-litigate her case if she should be allowed to be
starved to death, as you already have decided she should not.
It is therefore beyond litigation.

I urge you again, not to waste a single second but to
immediately take control of Terri health and wellbeing and
safety and to ensure police will guard her against anyone who
may seek to attempt to deny Terri her human rights in any
way whatsoever, including her right to be fed!

I doubt that any lawyer ever may have argued my reasoning,
then again, being an outsider perhaps gives me a better
insight and ability to use common sense!

As for protesters who seek to feed Terri being arrested. It
seems to me they are acting lawfully, if indeed by de facto
the State of Florida took guardianship in 2003 by ordering
the reinsertion of the feeding tube. Subsequent court
decisions simply are a legal irrelevance.

The sheer hypocrisy of the neo-con godbotherers is breathtaking. This poor woman has been artificially kept alive for 15 years at who knows what cost, just so she can end up being used as a political football by those who depend on the electoral support of the loony religious right. Of course, these are precisely the same people who shrug off the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians as 'collateral damage' from their adventure in Iraq...

Their cruelty apparently knows no bounds - why starve the poor thing slowly to death? Somebody should mercifully put her out of her misery. Why subject the poor woman to 'treatment' that would be deemed inhumane if it was applied to an animal? If my dog or horse was in a similar state I'd have the vet euthenase them to put an end to needless suffering. If I allowed my dog or horse to starve to death I would rightly be charged with cruelty to animals.

The twisted logic of the godbotherers never ceases to amaze me, as does the cruel political cynicism of the neo-cons.

Morgan

The author seems to lack many of the facts of the case, but I don't find that suprising given the right-wing PR machine in America.

The courts have weighed the evidence and decided that Terri would not want to continue like this. From what I understand, it is no longer up to the husband and he is no longer acting as guardian with respect to her life support.

The parents, like the husband and thousands of others, are in a horrible situation. They do not want to let go of Terri and may also be ideologically opposed to refusing treatment. They are trying every single argument that they can think of in order to keep her body alive and this is shown by the many varied, incredibly dubious and hateful attacks against the husband. The parents claims have consistently been found lacking, and given some of their statements about Terri's actions it is clear that they are delusional, or making stuff up, or both. Consider also that their spokesman is Terry Randall, a pro-life extremist who believes Americans are called by God to conquer the US and make it a theocracy.

The video was compiled from countless hours of filming for the purpose of convincing others. Because they lack proper context those scenes do make her look "alert and responsive", but the courts have found that her actions are involuntary and that she is unable to respond to simple questions, despite many tests.

There are no supporting documents for Iyer's many claims, even though she would have had to report them and her claims are not corroborated by other nurses. The settlement money is gone and the husband has refused many offers of money, so he doesn't seem to be in it for selfish purposes.

Most of her brain has atrophied and is now liquid, it is not coming back. There is no chance of rehabilitive care (which he couldn't fund anyway) because she is not responding, because what held her consciousness is gone.

Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka, the actions by Jeb were found to be unconstitutional, 'nuff said.

Morganzola and Deuc – agree entirely with your posts.

Unlike the claims in the article, this case looks like it will be resolved over the next couple of days – the Bush family’s attempts at “muddy waters politicing” and “rule by presidential decree” having failed.

When this lady left her parents home, married and built a home of her own with her husband, her parents relinquished all “priority of authority” over her and the disposition of her (now sadly vegetating) body. In the absence of her own cognitive ability and the absence of divorce or separation orders, her husband is, rightly, the guardian of his spouse - not her parents.
If you don’t like this just turn it around and ask yourself if you -

1 should be forever the subject of your parents whims
or
2 should age of majority mark your adulthood and thus right of deciding on matters of personal choice.

As for all the bull and bluster and attempts at character assassination of the husband - easy to claim – where is the “real” evidence. 15 years is a long time – I am sure anyone else of reasonable life expectations and motivations would want to “move on” with their life too.
Certainly if it were me, I would want to be "unburdened" of a pointless husk existence and would wish my partner to go forward and create the best life for themselves which they could – that is part of the art the of loving – not clinging to it.

And Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka
“I know basically nothing about USA law, but commonsense tells me”

1 - I guess US courts are better equipped in their “knowledge of US law”.
2 – Your common sense and my common sense are opposed.

My “commonsense” says a husband is “guardian” for the reasons I outline above.

The “state” should interfere only at its peril – Diminish the individual and you diminish the society to which they contribute – and thus the apparatus of the state, which relies on the strength of those individuals for its existence

As usual the fundamental truth is the first victim in unfortunately common charades like this by those who have control in these matters putting it to the attention of the common people and real issues are kept out of the public arena. Its actually creates a bit of a circus that serves to involve people, put across a intended image, entertainment etc...

Reality from a medical perspective is that this person by virtue of vegetative state looses life saving reflexes we all take for granted like the coughing reflex. Without active management they would be dead in about 3 weeks from a overwhelming lung infection which is what happen in the thousands in nursing homes to the elderly every day through out Australia.

Taking a feeding tube out is just plain unusual and cruel act which can only be compared to limiting the amount of air allowed to breath meaning basic life essentials which should never be allowed control over by law, politicians or families. What not being said here is that there has to be intensive life preserving medical intervention going on constantly to keep this person alive which is not getting any address at all.

So a common person now has to take one step back and ask the obvious question, Why this circus?...

Who gains and who are the pawns and why is the obvious not being done...

I am afraid the answers may not be pretty and reality may be just pretty ugly.

Sam

In 1984, I received a call my father was given less then 24 hours to live and was in a coma. I was told he had suffered an heart attack and would be about brain death.
Being on the other side of the world, I urged my mother to go to my fathers bedside and to make known I had said to hold on. A week later I talked to him over the phone and he was back to normal and no brain damage whatsoever! My father lived another 19 years, and died age 83!

My father had given up the will to live, but my mothers words about my message got him back, as he explained to me later!

We must never condemn any person merely because they may have some disability or otherwise. Their right to live is equal to our rights.

In my view, Terri’s husband, having pursued a large payout and commencing another family hardly could have been considered to speak for Terri without bias.

That Terri may have suffered in her condition is not the issue, rather if her suffering was not unreasonable. Where Terri’s husband allegedly denied appropriate treatment for her to have some recovery then how on earth can you then accept his claims?

Some people suffer but find that life itself is still overriding the suffering!

Also, if we kill of this woman, then where will it stop?

Soon, children or other people standing to inherit monies may want to claim that a person who is very ill stated wanting to die, not because this person did so, but because Terri’s case can be used to effectively commit legal murder!
Where will it end?

Why not clean out nursing homes using Terri’s case as an excuse?

We must never accept the deliberately killing of another human being innocent of no wrongdoing. Let alone by starvation!

Gerrit, you father did not have brain damage. Mrs Schiavo has extensive brain damage - much of her brain is gone, her EEGs are flat, she is not disabled she is completely and permanently unable. The money is gone, he was offered millions to give up guardianship but did not. It would not matter anyway, he gave up his say when he petitioned the court to decide. Rehabilitation was tried many times.

This page is a must for anyone seeking to be well informed:
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html

This article is disgracefully one-sided in its characterisation of Michael Shiavo as the 'bad guy'. The references to the money involved are not based on any real evidence - at least a couple of monetary offers have been turned down by Shiavo. This includes an offer of one million dollars from an embryonic stem cell research proponent who believes the technology can save her (somewhat ironic since most 'pro-lifers' are vehemently opposed to this).

The claims by Bandalow that Michael asked "Can't you do anything to accelerate her death?" and "When is that bitch going to die?" are meaningless. There is no more evidence for these than there is for Shiavo's sisters having said that Terri would have wanted to die - something the author does not seem willing to believe.

Bandalow is extremely selective about which 'facts' he chooses to mention in the article, unsurprising for someone from a free-market think-tank.

My issue is and remains to be that if we accept that killing a person by starvation is acceptable, then soon or later others will follow suit, and we will find that the dividing line when it is deemed justified and when not will be blurred as times goes on and soon or later people who have no problems are being killed off!

In Australia, they have this policy to lock up so called “non-citizens” in concentration camp Commonwealth Detention Centres. We have a person already locked up for more then 6½ years. More then some convicted criminal may get for rape or even killing someone unlawfully. Now we find that Australians are ending up in those concentration camps also!
I warned about this already a few years ago, that if you accept the unconstitutional detention of “refugees” then it is a matter of time before Australian citizens will be locked up. And, the prime minister admitted he would not even know how many Australian citizens are locked up in those detention centers!

Again, accept the killing of a human being today, for whatever reason and tomorrow others will follow suit and start killing of people for their inheritance, or whatever.
I could not care less about him, and his claims he care for his wife, as his living situation clearly proves otherwise.
If he really cared for her, why not then remained faithful to his wife, and why did he not then provide the services she needed then?
If Terri’s husband ware the culprit, who caused the harm to her, then it would basically be that the Courts sanction him to complete his killing of his wife as to prevent her to expose him as the real culprit!
Whatever Terri’s mental state might be, and whenever the videos were taken of her, it is clear, that she was not just in a vegetable state, but nevertheless her husband than already was before the Courts to have her killed off by starvation! And, while he already had created a de facto family with children!
No Humanbeing deserves such dead!

Gerrit
I agree about your point regarding refugees and their treatment in this country and I also agree that just removing Terri's feeding tube and letting her die by starvation is worse than how we treat animals.

However, a medical examination by video particularly one involving brain activity is nothing less than a charade. As an amulance officer if I was to make such a decision I would expect to lose my job.

Terri's predicament is a case for euthanasia. Now I understand that you will start to complain where will it all end? A fair comment, however to argue that this poor woman should continue an existence such as the one she has had for the past 15 years is equally abhorrent - where will that end? People hooked up to life supports at great expense indefinitely? What does that achieve? Huge medical expenses and people literally tortured indefinitely.

I just have 2 things to say on this matter:

1. Isn't it interesting how the religious right-wing accuse us of "playing god", and claim that "god wants her to live". I would think that if anything is "playing god", it's using an artificial life support system to keep someone alive. (Yet another example that religious extemism has no place in society!) And anyone suggesting that she'll somehow just get better is sadly deluded.

2. Would YOU want to live (if that's the right term), in that state? Not on any planet can you call that "quality of life". I think those desparate to keep her alive are more concerned about their "cause", than what the woman would actually want for herself. Do they really think someone would choose to exist in that state? I suggest it's cruel to keep someone alive in that state.

I experienced a TIA in 2000 - a mild stroke which rendered me with slurred speech, no control of my right side whatsoever, short term distortions to my sight and hearing. I have had other serious medical experiences but nothing compares to the loss of control of our bodies or reduction to a state of "conscious helplessness".
Mine was a very mild TIA, I was in emergency within 30 minutes, being pumped full of heprin, from which I made full recovery.

You can all speculate or pontificate about "life" with "brain death" all you like and this poor womans state of existence for the past 15 years.

My personal experience of something which might have left me in or close to such a state as hers is - when I die I want it to be fast, final and absolute, no entrapment within a husk where I am held a prisoner, conscious yet helpless. Nothing you can “imagine” compares to having actually been there.

The correct thing for her parents to have done would have been to recognise their daughters life was over. Their demand is the self-indulgent rubbish which comes from those who are entirely self-centred and unprepared to respond maturely to the cards life dealt their daughter.

Part 1

As for how Terri’s quality of life is, that is the problem, that we do not know!
No person in his right mind would want to end up in the conditions Terri did but not on her own free will. She is not on life support, just on a feeding tube, as many people are after operations or who are in a coma, etc.
If we can argue that the removal of feeding tube is justified as it is a life support item, then we are justifying to kill all of people on feeding tube due to some ill health, babies born premature, etc.

If Terri entered hospital and her CT scans showed her brain was functioning normal, then perhaps some visitor might have just given some “helping hand” to try to kill her but perhaps was disturbed to complete the job then and now has it done by law.
After all, it is not uncommon for children to be smothered to death while in hospital, even by their own mothers, as shown on video tape recordings in hospital!
Who ever checked this out?

What is clear is that Terri was neglected and denied appropriate treatment from start, and how she ended up in current circumstances therefore ought no t determine her right to life or not. To do so would enhance for others to neglect the ill and the disabled, etc!

We as a society can perhaps use any excuse to exterminate the ill, the frail, the disabled, etc but to do so we no longer are an society but a bunch of hypocrites that only care about our own benefits.

We may look upon Terri as if she has no life to live, but for Terri it might be totally different. To her, having her family around might be more meaning full then the past separation with her family!

We have no right to judge the quality of life of Terri, where she is a person who can breath the air on her own, and as such remains to function as a human being.

Gerrit,
Babies born prematurely have something to look forward to. To suggest it should be treated the same way is to show you have little understanding of the terms "vegetative" or "brain dead". Take the emotion out of the argument and look at the facts. Any free thinking person can see that this woman is merely existing, not living. Once again, keeping her alive in this state is serving the religious right-wing cause only.

So now we've established that Terry Shiavo has absolutely no rights as a human being, the question boils down to who should have the right to say whether she lives or dies. Whether you think she should die or not is irrelevant. In every case such as this someone has to make the decision. So should it be left with the husband, who has clearly moved on with his life, or with her parents, who have known and loved her her whole life?

The question is the same if the roles were reversed. Who should make the decision if Terry's husband, having gotten on with his life, still wants her to live, and her family who wants to spare her anymore suffering?

What is best for Terry obviously means nothing. If she's brain dead, then starving to death would cause her no pain, similarly her going on living means nothing as she would have no clue to her state. But her being alive obviously is inconvenient to some, and her starving to death makes others uncomfortable. The only question is who has the right to make the decision. (And who pays for it).

Cranky "The only question is who has the right to make the decision?”

I attempted to answer this in an earlier post, since I agree, when someone is incompetent a guardian is needed to act on their behalf.

I believe to answer the question you raise, the context must be separated from the emotional hyperbole which now taints this particular situation but to re-phrase what I wrote previously -

“Parental right of decision” should not prevail over the sanctity of marriage and the authority of a chosen spouse. Otherwise, we are ignoring the ascendancy to maturity of the offspring and the very nature of the relationship found in marriage.

Take a simpler example, a married couple wish to move from one state to another, should a parent / grandparent have legal right to deny them to relocate because it means they will see less of their child / grand-children ?

If you say "yes", "parents should be allowed to intervene to stop their adult children from relocating themselves and the grandchildren" – please explain your reasoning

Part 2
We cannot now refuse any kind of emergency care to a person who may have a heart attack or otherwise may need to be placed on a life support system upon the basis that they are less human because at that moment they cannot breath the air by themselves and as such lost their right to live!

What we have is Hitler’s curse, as he wanted to dispose of the disabled, the elderly, etc and we seem to be introducing the very legal steps that another wannabe Hitler can use.
Just consider then that one of your own children may fall ill and rather then being given an opportunity to recover, it be standard practice that some people are less human and are simply terminated being it by starving to death or otherwise, while people in so called “high positions” remain to have or are considered to be of value and they are given all medical care.
What standards in today’s society are we really aiming for?

If Terri, so to say, was brain death, then turning of her life support machine would simply end her life. However, there is no life support machine keeping her alive and so this is not some (so called) “humane” way to resolve it.
Terri, as like you and me requires to eat and to drink, and that is the real issue. If she can be starved to death for whatever excuse, then the same can be done to any other person under whatever excuse, regardless if they are sick or not!

We are dealing with the act of deliberately starving a person to death, as was the gruesome experiments Hitler’s cronies were doing.
We are no better then them if we use any excuse to starve a person to death!
A convicted killer sentenced to death must be provided with a quick “HUMANE” death by lethal injection or otherwise, while an innocent woman is ordered to slowly STARVE TO DEATH!
Why do the supporters of such gruesome killing say “HAIL HITLER” to show their true colours?

An email received by me had some of the following;

QUOTE
Hennessy pointed to several Florida statutes that have
been disregarded by Greer, including one which states that
an incapacitated person cannot be deprived of food and
water.

Several other statutes regarding the care of people not
able to speak for themselves point to requirements for
neurological testing, requirements for a permanent
diagnosis before the withdrawal of life-prolonging means
and a state law that forbids mercy killing and assisted
suicide.

The foundation stated in a press release that unless the
"true neurological condition of Terri Schiavo" is assessed
prior to the removal of her feeding tube, Greer's order is
"a directive for her guardian to commit either a mercy
killing or assisted suicide."

END QUOTE

We had some doctor declaring that people in Terri’s condition do not suffer pain. Well, why then do they use morphine to reduce her feelings of suffering?

As for grandparents and even a separated parent, contact with a grandchild/child that is another issue, albeit, I would argue, in principle, for the rights of grandparents to see their grandchildren and visa versa.

As for Terri being an adult (mature), where she no longer is medically competent to run her own affairs, then who should be her competent guardian is the issue!

The husband, having commenced another relationship and fathered 2 children in that hardly could be deemed to be a proper guardian as he has gone against Terri’s right of having a husband, not sharing him!
Also, where it appears she had bone fractures, that are unexplained, which was apparently not known when he was made guardian, then this also makes him undesirable, as he could be the perpetrator of domestic violence, indeed could have caused Terri to end up in hospital!

In view that Governor Jeb Bush in 2003 did override Terri’s husbands desire to have his wife starved to death, then that was a clear statement that the guardianship was wrongly used, and as such the State of Florida must be seen to have relinquished the guardianship of Terri to her husband

Col Rouge – generally speaking, the spouse has the final right to make decisions regarding their wife/husband. I don’t think you’d find too many arguing any different. However, this is not the case in this example. Terry’s husband has certainly moved on with his life. A new girlfriend and two children certainly show that he can no longer be considered her husband in anyway other than name only. Terry has been in this state for along time, so you can’t blame him for getting on with his life. But it is also for this reason that he probably is not the best person to be given the decision as to whether she lives or dies.

Unfortunately it’s impossible to keep the emotional out of the argument. Pro-life people will always adopt the pro-life stance, and vice versa. In other words people will always barrack for whoever shares their views. This debate needs to take place when there are no unfortunate Terry Shiavos’ to cloud the issue of guardianship.

I would just like to point out again that the husband did not make the decision. He asked the court to decide Terri's wishes, it did and now he cannot change that.

Cranky – laws are designed to accommodate the likely circumstance. They should not be designed to accommodate a particular or specific circumstance. I see no merit in pretending that extreme circumstances prevail to deny Mr Schiavo the presumptions which would extend to any other individual simply because his in-laws object. That someone has “moved on with their life” does not mean a de-facto diminution their rights or obligations in marriage, only the legal separation or cessation of the marriage can do that. Unless, of course, you wish to direct the law into an area of obscurity where visibility is reduced to zero by a fog of emotionally founded extenuations.

I would tend to agree with the general sentiment expressed by individuals who argue against maintaining life support when the patient is in a miserable vegetative state. It is an exceptionally difficult call to make, and please God I don't ever have to make it myself, but living a life of absolute misery(through paralysis or immobility for example) and being catatonic is unfair and cruel. It is unfair to the victim of tragedy and to the family members and loved ones who witness the slow and inevitable decline in the physical and/or mental condition of the patient. Perhaps lawmakers should not be called upon to enforce action, but guidelines need to be drawn up, however vague they might be.

My 14-yo son and I were talking about the Terry Shiavo case the other day, when he turned to me and said, "Dad, if I ever get like that, please put me out of my misery".

Out of the mouths of babes, eh?