OT: Game, Set, Match--Legal murder by starvation
 

Today, the murder of Terry Schindler Schiavo began. Within two weeks at the most, she will die of starvation and dehydration. The courts have denied her rights, and now her husband and his fiancee of seven years will finally be allowed to kill his wife. Ironically, he told another court in 1992 that he loved Terri, that he intended to keep his wedding vows, and that Terri was a joy to him. Of course, malpractice money was at stake in that case. Now, the money from that medical trust fund is gone, apparently spent on legal efforts to end Terri's life.

See Terri's family's web site for more on this revolting example of everything wrong with our society. Weep. Rage. Threaten. But, most of all, SPEAK OUT!

[ October 15, 2003, 21:34: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

Re: OT: Game, Set, Match--Legal murder by starvation
 

i really hope it's a hoax.

Re: OT: Game, Set, Match--Legal murder by starvation
 

sorry, narf. the world's an ugly place.

Re: OT: Game, Set, Match--Legal murder by starvation
 

if something ever drives me up a roof with a sniper rifle it'll be things like this.

Re: OT: Game, Set, Match--Legal murder by starvation
 

Definitely not a hoax: link.

Re: OT: Game, Set, Match--Legal murder by starvation
 

well, that was one-sided.

Re: OT: Game, Set, Match--Legal murder by starvation
 

No, it's not a hoax. I've followed this case for nearly a year now. The judicial mishandling and inaction is bad enough; (Recently, a federal judge said he didn't have jurisdiction to hear an appeal on the constitutionality of removing her feeding tube. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif ) the circumstantial evidence against Michael Schiavo is simply horrifying. In the Court of Common Sense, he'd have been locked up and the key thrown away ten years ago. In the Court of Refined Legal Opinion, there apparently isn't even a case worth hearing. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif

Re: OT: Game, Set, Match--Legal murder by starvation
 

Who cares? If my head was cut off and thrown in a garbage disposal, but my body was kept alive with tubes, would I care if my heart stopped beating? No.

Who gave the government the right to force families to waste their money on brainless lumps of flesh? I don't see that in the Constitution anywhere. Rather, I see that people have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness... but a person is a thinking entity... and thus, brain-dead people, who can't make choices anymore, or have happiness, are no longer really people. So, for example, if I cut off my finger, it would not have any rights, because it is not a person. But let's pretend that brain-dead lumps of human flesh are actually people. Then I would say, the family of the lump of flesh has a right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness, and being saddled with high medical bills that serve no purpose is a violation of their rights.

-Cherry

P.S. I'm not saying her husband isn't disgusting - maybe he is, I don't know him - but I don't see why vast amounts of resources should be wasted on the dead when there are live people starving and homeless. There are only finite resources, you know... and every million dollars spent on life-support of a corpse for a year is a million dollars that can't be used to feed 2,000 people at a soup kitchen for a year.

[ October 15, 2003, 22:21: Message edited by: Saber Cherry ]

Re: OT: Game, Set, Match--Legal murder by starvation
 

so, your convieneince takes precendence over another human life? well, your arguements are interferring with my enjoyment of life. should i get that sniper rifle now?

Re: OT: Game, Set, Match--Legal murder by starvation
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That's very insulting. But if I was brain-dead, then sure.

Re: OT: Game, Set, Match--Legal murder by starvation
 

I agree with Cherry: My convenience does take precedence over the convenience of a still warm corpse.

Re: OT: Game, Set, Match--Legal murder by starvation
 

Terri is not brain-dead, and she is not in a Persistent Vegetative State (PVS). Seven doctors have presented sworn affidavits stating as much, and the judge admitted in his written report that he only looked at one of them. Terri responds to her mother, her father, her siblings, her friends, and her nurses; but when her husband comes in, she closes up. Try this page, which links to a video showing Terri during one of her examinations to determine her mental state. The doctor performing the examination later testified that Terri wasn't really following his instructions; she just "looked like" she was.

The immediate issue is that Terri has normal physical functions, except that she has lost the ability to swallow. She requires a gastrotomy for her nutrition and hydration (a "feeding tube"). Several doctors have indicated that Terri is an excellent candidate for therapy to help her regain the ability to swallow; but Michael Schiavo and the courts have refused to even allow a trial period to see if she would benefit.

Regarding the money, it's not Michael's. The money was awarded to Terri and put in trust for her medical treatment in a malpractice lawsuit in 1993. The money wasn't even the problem: immediately after the trust was established, Michael instructed the care facility not to treat a potentially fatal infection and gave Do Not Resuscitate orders for his wife. The facility refused and notified the family. After a court battle, Michael simply moved Terri to a new facility without telling the family and repeated the move. Oh, and Terri has no will--if she dies, her husband would receive everything in the fund.

Regarding his fitness for guardianship, evidence was presented (and summarily rejected in a bench ruling) demonstrating multiple breaches of Florida guardianship statutes (as many as one dozen in a single guardianship report). Second, there's a definite conflict of interest when Michael has been engaged to another woman for seven years (while his wife is still living), has one child already and another on the way, and only needs his wife to die so they can officially marry. Does anyone else see a problem with appointing this man to control his wife's medical care?

[ October 15, 2003, 22:44: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

Re: OT: Game, Set, Match--Legal murder by starvation
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">it was this qoute i found offensive. my following comment was just a logical extension.

but in this case, she doesn't sound brain-dead. personally, i'm not sure about the truly brain-dead. or how you would be sure someone is truly brain-dead.

Re: OT: Game, Set, Match--Legal murder by starvation
 

Gramps and Cherry have it. Its ugly, sure. The husband sounds awfully self serving. But spending resources on people that can no longer contribute to society, on the off hand chance that they might rehabilitate? on the same token, im not a big proponent of life terms in prision.

The thing that bothers me the most, is that they are going to euthanize her through starvation. at least make it lethal injection - starvations a cold, cold, way to go.

which isnt to say that there are not enough resources to care for her, and the homeless, and the hungry. there definitly ARE. we have just made a consious decision as a society not to use those resources towards those ends. and with good reason.

Though by "wasting" resources on the infirm (instead of throwing inferior babies in ditches, like the Spartans...) we DO help develop more advanced medical procedures that we would not otherwise develop. but is the medical effort worth the backwards evolutionary steps?

OH NO! the Meaning of Life! Another Philosophy Thread! Socialists vs Capitalist Pigs! Run! Euthanasia! Value of life! Devolution! we'll be talking about forign policy, next! DOOM! DOOOOOOooooooOOOOOOM! Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!

Re: OT: Game, Set, Match--Legal murder by starvation
 

one esseintial trait of civilization is the ability and will to care for others.

don't support ideas that might later be applied to you unless you want them to be applied to you.

Re: OT: Game, Set, Match--Legal murder by starvation
 

I can't say that I know the details of this case, since any link I follow seems to be biased, and doctors are testifying both ways. If Terri had her own money in a trust fund, then based on property rights, she should be allowed to remain comatose and fed until the money runs out - even though I feel that it is a waste of resources. And yes, it seems like her husband may be an evil person who is preventing this from happening, for his own profit. But, that's based on biased testimony. And if he has to "kill" his "wife" to remarry, that's the fault of the state and its ill-considered, intrusive laws.

I've seen a family destroyed by forced, government-mandated (but not funded) care for a "person" who was born without enough brainpower to chew or swallow. It's sickening; they had to sell their house and move into a rental, and etc. In fact, the daughter (my connection to the family) will never have children because she's so scared of ending up in that situation again.

At any rate... I can't say that I'm bothered if she (Terri) "dies", because there is no evidence that she cares whether she dies, or knows whether she is "alive". It seemed from the CNN article that brain scans dectected no activity associated with thought.

-Cherry

[ October 15, 2003, 23:08: Message edited by: Saber Cherry ]

Re: OT: Game, Set, Match--Legal murder by starvation
 

well, your off the sniper list. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: OT: Game, Set, Match--Legal murder by starvation
 

is it not his right. He is the husband. As she cannot think for herself.

It is just messy and all parties involved are hurt.

I think I can understand his wishing to end this.

I hope I never do understand.

Re: OT: Game, Set, Match--Legal murder by starvation
 

Narfster:
Sniper rifle http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif
What kind of problems can be solved by running around with a sniper rifle ? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

Re: OT: Game, Set, Match--Legal murder by starvation
 

i had to let off some steam.

Re: OT: Game, Set, Match--Legal murder by starvation
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">i hope im still on it. i have it comming.

Re: OT: Game, Set, Match--Legal murder by starvation
 

yep, your on it.

i wonder if i'm scaring an gov spooks?

[ October 15, 2003, 23:44: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

Re: OT: Game, Set, Match--Legal murder by starvation
 

Nice closing to that rant Puke.

[ October 16, 2003, 00:00: Message edited by: Loser ]

Re: OT: Game, Set, Match--Legal murder by starvation
 

Sometimes, Cthulhu needs to have his little nappy interrupted. *not sure whether a smiley is appropriate here*

Re: OT: Game, Set, Match--Legal murder by starvation
 

Really, it's just a whole mess of stupidity.

The law should generally seek to avoid situations where someone is forced into such an awful situation, and would therefore benefit greatly from someone else's death.

The court should be able to enforce a divorce between them, make her parents her legal guardians, and remove any right the husband has to the money.

Then he could go on with his life without being forced to be married to someone he obviously doesn't love anymore, and she doesn't have to die for him to do it.

And, of course, someone who actually cares for her can make decisions in her best interests, with her own money (and theirs when it runs out).

Unless all that happens first I think any argument over whether it is better to keep her alive or not is totally mired in counter-productiveness. In fact it's a useless argument unless she is being cared for by public money - her parents should be able to spend her (or their) private money to keep her alive if they wish to.

And her compensation money definatley shouldn't go to anyone who decides to kill her. That is just wrong.

I don't see why the legislature isn't doing something to make this happen, if the courts can't.

Re: OT: Game, Set, Match--Legal murder by starvation
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That is not what the law is for, here in the U.S. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Giving 'the court' this power only adds to the number of difficult decisions 'the court' must make. Here in the U.S. we believe freedom and happiness come from limited the powers of the government, not making a government that can solve all our problems. This is the major difference between our government and the more statist democracies of the old and colonial world. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Again, you are assuming a third party to possess and unquestionable wisdom and benevolence. How would the court know? There are rules for what can and cannot be shown as evidence in court and those rules are there for a reason. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The biggest question here is whether or not she is still alive. That is what the court had to decide, because that makes all the other decisions. 'The court' apparently determined that she was no longer alive. That's what the judicial system is for, making such decisions. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Because that is not what the legislature is for. Division of power is essential to the U.S. government. If every branch could do what every other branch could do we'd simply have three branches in constant conflict with each other, not the working-together checks-and-balances system that has sustained the longest standing government in the world (based on the document it was founded on, the consistency of it's operation).

Sure the separate branches step on each other's toes every now and then, but it is important for them to pick their fights very carefully. Else there'd be a 'cry wolf' scenario.

All that said, this is a terrible situation. Without knowing all the details it might not even be possible to understand the decisions made by the court. Considering the 'one sided' nature of what we've heard so far I doubt we've got the whole story.

All in all, I'm just glad I do not need to make a decision or declare my allegiance to a side on this one.

Re: OT: Game, Set, Match--Legal murder by starvation
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I think the only issue is she should not have made the bad judgement to have married the guy in the first place or she should have had the good judgement to have written a living will -especially if her husband is truly as evil as her parents say he is. Once you're married, though, - unless you've gone to the trouble to right a will - a spouse is responsible for you in life and death situations and I really don't see what NEW legal rights the parents should be given.

I am going out on a limb here, but it's seems like those that want the courts to step in would be the same ones that would complain about "activist judges".

Re: OT: Game, Set, Match--Legal murder by starvation
 

/note to self: Do I really want to step into that messy discussion? Ah, I’m already in! Argh!

First of all on the topic of “starvation”: If you feed the patient with tee or some other liquid (possibly i.v.) and apply a small does of pain-killers starvation is in fact not a painful death. Many old people die this way. They are not forced to starve but they have no appetite whatsoever. The whole procedure is one of the most human ways to let someone go if the person wants to.

This brings us to the next question: Who has to decide if Terri shall live or not. IMHO the only person that can make a decision about this is … Terri. It totally depends on her will. Does she want to live the way she does or does she not?
If I read the links correctly, Terri left no written will. In this case the only decision that would be legal over here is to keep her alive. We don’t know exactly what she wants but if we end her live we can never give it back to her. When in doubt, save a life!

I can only encourage everybody – no matter the age – to make a binding will for exactly this case: When you are helpless and cannot speak for yourself. Find people you trust and give them the right to make decisions. At least write down what the treatment should be if you come into such a situation. Fate can strike you every day…

Re: OT: Game, Set, Match--Legal murder by starvation
 

Had the "pull the plug" clause in my will for a decade already. Put it in when a former co-worker had a close call. He recovered, allthough with some permanent brain damage, before pulling the plug became an option, but things like that makes you think. Death is not always the worst option.

Re: OT: Game, Set, Match--Legal murder by starvation
 

i have sent an email to two of my area's local newspaper's and a tv station. why? $750,000 trust fund to the husband if she dies, there's evidence that her condition is the result of a beating, her husband is living with his girlfriend and has a kid and another on the way. just in case anyone needs a summary.

Re: OT: Game, Set, Match--Legal murder by starvation
 

As one who lives near Tampa, I'm all too well of the Terry Schiavo case. I think the husband is a scumbag who may get off on not letting the parents see their daughter, who is slowly dying. I only hope that some Last minute court process can be created and that Terry can be put back on her feeding tube.

Re: OT: Game, Set, Match--Legal murder by starvation
 

I don't agree with euthanasia of any kind. If I were the one on life support, I would rather suffer than be dead. Even if the pain and suffering were great, I would still prefer to be alive than dead. Even if I seemed to be a brain dead, I would still want to be on life support, because there is always a chance, however small, of a recovery. Because once they pull the plug and you die, that's it, it's over.

Re: OT: Game, Set, Match--Legal murder by starvation
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I realize that this is a very personal subject and I don't wish to be offensive. But I suggest that you try not to say things like this before you've really, really been in pain. But then again, maybe I'm just squeamish.

Re: OT: Game, Set, Match--Legal murder by starvation
 

The sad and maddening thing about this case is that Terry is not brain dead, but what they call a vegetative state. She is aware of her surroundings, and can respond to people. However, the scumbag of a husband and his lawyer have convinced the judge that Terry would have rather died than continue in this state. Now a special session of the state legislature is in session, and it looks like the first thing they're working on is giving Jeb Bush the power to stop this tragedy from continuing. Let's hope they're done before she passes on.

Re: OT: Game, Set, Match--Legal murder by starvation
 

I would suggest anyone making a judgement in this case, to carefully read everything they can on it. The latest articles in the mainstream press smack of reporters not doing their homework and basing their information off of a snippet or two of info they have found on the case.

If you look carefully enough you will see how this is a tragedy, and it is unlike any of the common euthanasia cases that most folks argue over.

I have been aware of this case for over a year now, and it shows how disgusting humanity can be when people try to determine someone's self worth based on their own personal views versus the views of the person who is about to die. It also shows how screwed up the U.S. Court system can be.

And yes a will would have saved her in this situation Mephisto.

Re: OT: Game, Set, Match--Legal murder by starvation
 

Update: The bill has passed the legislature and the tube should be re-inserted but the husband is trying to fight it in court as we speak.

Re: OT: Game, Set, Match--Legal murder by starvation
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">You should not generalize this. I respect your will in on that case, and I do not wish to force my point of view upon you, but please also refrain from forcing your point of view onto others. _I_ certainly do not wish to continue "living" as an animated broccoli, or worse.
This is a very difficult and personal decision, this should not be generalized or labelled with so-called moral standards but left to every ones individual decision.

Re: OT: Game, Set, Match--Legal murder by starvation
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">i should apoligize for that. sorry, Saber Cherry

Re: OT: Game, Set, Match--Legal murder by starvation
 

http://www.rr.com/v5/2/news/frame/0,...~1~9000_528908

Just some of the news I got when I opened up my web browser.

Re: OT: Game, Set, Match--Legal murder by starvation
 

Well, Michael "Scumbag" Schiavo will be on Larry King tonight, discussing his decade long feud with the Schindlers, Terry's parents. Might be tempted to watch it, as long as I can find a barf bag.