Looking at the potential fallout relating to the unfortunate treatment of Terri Schiavo and shameful outcome. Does the group believe, there has to be victims of the system before laws and societal changes are made?
As an outsider looking in: I watched both sides of the fence daily on CNN and Fox news stations, with fascination, dismay and disgust.

I noted topics such as: the right to die/live, Guardianship, a husband who chose to have an extra marital relationship and offspring and, the use of morphine on a patient who supposedly felt no pain. The most gory issue was the fact that a patient was literally starved to death by the authorities. It's quite clear that this persons right to live was violated by being removed and placed in the authority of a person who in reality, chose to have another relationship and pro-create out with the agreements of a legal marriage.
I do have issues of faith here yet, I was equally dismayed and disgusted by religious extremism rearing its ugly head regarding this sad issue. I certainly feel for the Schiavo families on both sides.
Much to think about here but, I have to say, the States are a scary place at this time if, you don't have a living will with language that contains no ambiguity, when you are sick.
Wallace.

I'll let this thread proceed, but please keep this polite and focus on living wills or such. Threads like this tend to end up being political, religious and otherwise very personal opinion based, and they tend to explode into extreme emotional responses.

I experienced a similar situation in my family and have had a 'living will' for over 25 years. I may revise it to address interference by politicians and 'right to life' and other fanatics. I also have a 'Do Not Revive' statement on my drivers license and I checked Donate All Organs and All Tissues. My will provides for cremation of any remains.

Oh I know what personal looks like at the Cove Marc.
The coffee room is a good place to throw a measured flow of controversy around, with respect.
The Schiavo case brings up many aspect of the right to Live/die issues that can be very jaded by legal professionals and religious Pharisees at the hands of some clients and gullible followers respectfully.
Living wills shall change due to this case, even though I live Canada: the implications for living wills and the position of the health service in general may be broad. I shall take stock of this case and measure the potential for my family and I in the future.
I just can't make any personal judgments regarding this case yet, its clear the system of legality and medical ethics has been brought into disrepute by, the actions of a few.
Great institutions fail the masses when they make individual decisions to act in the name of the masses, without consultation. So now comes the corrective actions needed to fill the gap, some things never change. And what about the political fallout? I view and listen with interest.
Wallace.

I too am saddened by this media circus, and the tragedy that led to it. There is way too much complexity pain and difficulty associated with it to allow easy answers so I shall keep opinions to myself.

That having been said, a few observations I have heard or have made.
Why was the media so involved in a personal, private, family matter?
Why did the Florida state legislature become involved in a personal, private, family matter?
Why do we provide a quick, painless execution for criminals (where capital punishment is practiced) but must allow our loved ones to starve?
Why are we permitted to prevent a birth, but not help a loved one pass softly and quietly in peace and dignity?
Why did the media continue to publish stories supportive of the parents when the courts and public opinion polls clearly showed support for the husband as legal guardian?

My father suffers from late stage Alzheimers. As a result - so does my mother who cares for him. I watch them and wonder how long God will allow this to continue. My father does not wish this, but can do nothing, and we can only wait for the end.

I must now watch as my precious wife begins the journey down this same lonely and barren path.

What ever the particular wishes of individuals are, and what the feelings are of their loved ones, these are private, personal, and anguishing choices. No one should try to second guess, nor judge. These are between individuals and their God.

I pray only that none here are forced into such a decision as Michael Shievo faced, and that if you are, that the families would be supportive instead of combative. Too many lives have been ruined by this whole affair.

In closing may I suggest that we all hold our dear ones a bit tighter tonight, and make sure that they know how much we care.

Peace and Love to all

James

I can relate to this case.....and am dumbfounded. This was a tradgedy for the families. Grandstanding only muddied the water in my opinion, and the press did not help the situation.

My mother was pulled off the machine....and no, Congress did not get involved.

My dad died from complications resulting from Alzheimers. My hope there is that Congress will see their way clear to greatly increase the funding for the VA hospitals, like the one dad was in.

I realize that we all want to keep this thread pure and not political.....only problem is, numerous elected officials made the situation political, and therefore the discussion may be impossible to keep pure.

Hershal

As with all things, I can only be honest and frank about this topic..

It got to the point that I became more tired listening about it than I have with the Jackson mess in California. It became nothing more than a circus and media event that every flashbulb loving wannabe or has-been in the country wanted to get face time attending. How it evolved from a personal and private matter to the global news scene escapes me except for my understanding and belief of how obscenity attracts attention and this thing became obscene.

Judi and I discussed the issue at length from both the objective viewpoint and the viewpoint of our being Christians. It turned into a quagmire even in our home. We had both decided long before this that neither of us would allow the other to "linger". This isn't to say that we don't believe in emergency and trauma care, we do. Judi and I are both survivors of deadly events. Judi was actually declared dead by a physician in 1966 after being involved in a vehicle accident which nearly ripped her right leg and left foot off, crushed her face and caused her to bleed out in a ditch on a state highway. According to a hospital orderly she made a groan as she was being wheeled off to the "cooler", the rest is history. People can recover and be made whole again. Neither one of us wants to face the potential of the other being in a "PVS" or any other type of state where the prognosis is that they would be the equivalent of a carrot. We've promised the other to not allow the plug to be plugged in if it comes to that. The decision is based on both our love and respect for each other.

I think about what we've seen the last couple of weeks and I classify it equal to some of the worst vulgar I've seen or heard and I've seen and heard quite a bit.

If some real honor and respect could be paid to Terri Schiavo that respect should consist of the state and federal elected officials that got involved in this creating legislation making it a criminal offense to publish any type of material where one could make profit related to this incident and then enforcing it to the max. Nobody makes a dime off of this lady. That would honor her more than garbage flowing from mouths.

The lady's parents have already sold the mailing list of 'supporters'... Sold it two days ago.

This is nothing less than political aspirations on one end and financial gain on the part of her parents.

A sorry state of affairs, indeed. At my age, I see friends and relatives of both my own generation and the one just ahead of me going through this type of decision on nearly a weekly basis. In most cases, the decisons are complicated by purely financial considerations:

Keep someone alive in hope of a miracle recovery and spend yourself into bankruptcy and reduced quality of life for survivors
or
tape a "do not resuscitate" sign over the bed and hope for pneumonia to hasten the end.
These are terrible, terrible choices to make. One often wonders if one has the intestinal fortitude to make EITHER decision when (not IF) the time comes.

Like it or not, political considerations do come into play:
What happens in countries with socialized medicine where the family won't go bankrupt? Does the government keep folks in Terri's condition alive indefinitely? What do health insurance companies do?

If Schiavo had NOT won a lawsuit (or settled - I didn't follow the case closely - too painful), who would have paid the Hospice care these last 15 years?

Yep. Lots of questions. Lots of opinions. Few concrete answers.

To complicate things - I sure would not want to be diagnosed "terminal" by a third-rate physician in Podunk, Anywhere, USA, when an expert in every big city in the world could cure me with an operation or drug regimen.

I've seen numerous folks with amputated fingers and hands which could have been saved by routine microsurgery in a big city teaching hospital.

The possibility of "substandard medical care" absolutely colors my decisions on where to live and where to vacation.

My wife and I went through a double hospice situation last year involving both of her parents who had "Living Wills". I can relate to many of the sentiments expressed. Her parents died within 40 days of each other: all told we had lost 7 relatives in the past couple of years - 3 within a matter of weeks.

As for this poor Schiavo situation, while I would support Randy's thought that no one should profit from such situations we must remember one thing that is already abundantly apparent: the legal profession wins again. Not only for the fees involved in whichever side their advocacy role takes but also droves of Americans are rushing to get Living Wills or have their existing ones reviewed/ revised.

My thoughts on the subject, since you asked:

http://wynneworld.blogspot.com/2005/03/barbarism-and-more-hypocrisy.html

Leave comments there, if you have any, so as to avoid inflammation here.

Terri Schiavo... Yes, what a sad story. :nope: Ok, my opinion: She did not die in 2005, she died 15 years ago. Sure, her heart was beating and she was breathing, but what was that in aid of when her brain was damaged beyond any reasonable hope of recovery?

Imagining myself in the same situation: As long as there is hope, I intend to fight as hard as I know how, to stay among the living, but when all hope is gone I would prefer not to be kept going like that. Death may be a frightening prospect, but can the situation Terri Schiavo found herself in be called life? It is a matter of opinion, of course, but I don't think so... That 'Do Not Revive' statement Marc mentioned suddely seems like a very good idea.

All in all, I think maybe James' thoughts hit closest to home with me:I pray only that none here are forced into such a decision as Michael Shievo faced, and that if you are, that the families would be supportive instead of combative. Too many lives have been ruined by this whole affair.

In closing may I suggest that we all hold our dear ones a bit tighter tonight, and make sure that they know how much we care. You are absolutley right James, and I will follow your advice.

/Claes

So sad, this is truly a tragedy. I agree that she died years ago. She should have been removed from "true life support" way back, instead of starving to death yesterday. IMHO.

The question was asked about who would have paid for the hospice care had the lawsuit not been settled. It was reported that hospice care was given to Terri for free. She had been declared indigent. So, Mr. Schiavo did not have to pay for the hospice and of course, the medical bills were settled.

The lady's parents have already sold the mailing list of 'supporters'... Sold it two days ago.

This is nothing less than political aspirations on one end and financial gain on the part of her parents.
IMO you are making assumptions. We cannot know that her parents were motivated by greed or "financial gain" -- perhaps they are planning to use the money for a memorial, to pay off their legal fees (which must be very high) or to donate to hospice, etc.

One important issue (to me) is the issue of pain caused by removal of a feeding tube. Some supposed "experts" say there is no pain but others say 8% of patients feel lots of pain in such a situation. How can we be sure we are not setting up a loved one or ourself for a painful death? Seems one must be careful here...

I'm also kinda shocked a subject such as this is still allowed on the Cove -- people are already taking it in the direction of the forbidden subjects of politics and religion. Heck, I've been deleted for just going off topic on a quality thread...

My sentiments are similar to what James said. Here is a list of considerations and issues I think germane to this case.

Life is precious, and every attempt to restore it to a state where dignity and quality of life can be sustained should be made.
There is no moral right or wrong to allowing a person to die with dignity if they are already brain-dead and kept alive only through artificial means, with slim prognosis of improvement in the future.
The degree to which a person should be kept alive artificially should be communicated by that person in writing, before tragedy strikes. Immediate family members should seriously talk about this issue as soon as possible. If everyone completed a “durable power of attorney” or “designate of patient advocate” (DPA) document, most of this confusion would go away.
If nothing is written, the closest legal family member* must make that tough choice, even if it is a decision different than other extended family members.
If the closest legal family member deviously and selfishly does what is wrong (perhaps against the true unwritten wishes of the incapacitated person), that one is accountable to a higher power. It must be left at that.
The whole affair should be private (unless something illegal is committed), not a media circus. It should never be used as a springboard to advance the careers or agendas of politicians, doctors, journalists, radio personalities, insurance people, or others.

*The closest family member could be a husband or wife, parent of a minor child, child of a widowed elderly parent, or even a brother or sister. Where it gets ugly is when two or more family members are equally close in relationship and have widely divergent opinions (e.g. father and mother of a child, son and daughter of elderly parent, etc.) and the fighting begins - a sad fact of life that almost makes you happy for the one unconscious of it all.

I hope that the above was not inflammatory or too politically or religiously biased.

A brief discussion was held by several, not all, of the moderators, and I. I know this will not be a 'popular' decision, but I am closing this thread. It does violate the bundaries we set up with respect to politics and religious topics for these forums. I waffled on this a bit but in reading the posts, although most are pretty straight forward, I did see some 'disinformation' (that which I know is not correct). I don't believe it is purposeful - There's just a lot of incorrect information floating about. I just think it's better to take this to a different venue. The following is the reason, in summary, behind the decision: We can see this leading to a real blow-out. Already there are "opinions" on both sides - some stated outright and some via links. The "steam" is starting to rise even.

A decision was made to keep political discussions off the forum and we interpret that to apply equally to one which although it has other areas for discussion, is deeply rooted in politics by outside coverage.

We put the rule there for a reason. It was beaten to death and finally established. We think pushing the envelope to see how long it takes to burst will do nothing more than bring up old wounds and more "test" posts. Our opinion is to kill the thread before we get back to name-calling and fighting.
To those I disappoint in doing this, I apologise in advance. Unfortunately I sometimes have to do things which are not popular.