Skip to main content
Skip to main navigation
Skip to talk navigation

Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Saved Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Flip

1 2 3 4 5

News

TERRY SCHIAVO, Was her death necessary, or precedent?

111 replies

mamadadawahwah · 31/03/2005 22:28

I am sickened by the american government's failure to act to protect the weak and vulnerable and worry that Terry's death is just a prelude to what is going to happen in the future, despite living wills. Was her death a test case to see how the world reacts to shutting off life support? It was all so cold and something stinks about the whole thing. God Bless Terry and her family!. God knows what they must have gone through.

OP posts:

Report

mamadadawahwah · 31/03/2005 22:30

What would you do if Terry was your daughter? Maybe you have been in that very sad position already with a loved one. This case, however, to me seems very odd. The amount of media time it got also, particularly from the lawyers of Mr Shiavo was odd. Is it an attempt to take God out of the question? The lawyer, if you saw Fox news, was very negative towards the priest.

OP posts:

velcrobott · 31/03/2005 22:31

I won't argue the pros adn cons of HER situation... but
In what way is this a governmental issue ? it's a legal matter - at this point!
It's like when Blunkett wanted to keep certain prisonners from being freed (despite the courts).... it is not up to a minister or a president to decide despite the law!

sobernow · 31/03/2005 22:34

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

mamadadawahwah · 31/03/2005 22:40

sober, no i am talking about the "team" who saw to it that she died, i.e. her husband and his lawyers. Comments made today by the lawyer for Mr Schiavo, about the priest. He said the priest was not part of the healing process and said things to upset people. Basically the priest was pro life and didnt want Terry to die.

The whole things smacks of something else which i cant put my finger on. The family were prevented from being with Terry at the last moments. Yet, a lawyer was in the room when she died. A 35 minute interview was given by Fox news to Mr Schiavo's lawyer who was very cold and calculating about it all. He talked about giving her dignity in death, and that she uttered at some point to "witnesses" that she didnt want tubes (years ago) to keep her alive.

Yet, how was it dignified to die of starvation and thirst. I think the whole thing was jumped on by the govt/media to get us thinking about our own deaths and to make sure we dont become a drain on the medical system. This case has been done to "death" pardon the awful pun, on the news. Those who loved her the most were kept from her at the end of her life and i think it was a most undignified death for terry to die in the presence of her estranged husband (now living with someone else + has kids to her) and a lawyer.

Undignified and certainly not the way i would want to go.

OP posts:

mamadadawahwah · 31/03/2005 22:42

She has been like this for 14 years. Why the sudden rush to let her die? Also, some reports that MR Schiavo brutalised her. Maybe he wants it all done with so he can get the movie rights going. They have already been approached about this. He is going to be rich.

OP posts:

expatinscotland · 31/03/2005 22:42

She was not brain dead or afflicted with a terminal illness. That sets a very dangerous precedent. Mum or Dad getting too old and gone comatose or demented? Well, they wouldn't have wanted to live that way, so off w/'em.

Euthenasia and eugenics are two different things.

mamadadawahwah · 31/03/2005 22:47

Its very very dangerous to be vulnerable and weak in a hospital, particularly if you dont have anyone fighting for you. The partner of a relative of mine died after they shut off the "machine". My relative was not married to her and she had no family to say yes or no and my relative could do nothing. The woman died late at night after she developed pneumonia and stopped breathing. They just shut her off. Its too expensive to keep us alive and i think this is defo a test case to get our brains round the fact that this is gonna happen more and more.

If you live in the states or watch american media, you will have been inundated with this case. Right now, the whole country is talking about it. Terry's death was used by media (govt controlled anyway) to propagate the idea that euthanasia could be good, or at least to get us talking about it.

The final comment in the fox interview was "make sure you get a living will". Decide before you die what you want done. Many people will opt for having no tubes and this will save millions.

OP posts:

velcrobott · 31/03/2005 22:48

Yes but why is Mama talking about the gvt's role in this... it is a legal matter until they change the law, government should not try to influence judges.

Caligula · 31/03/2005 22:49

I didn't know the husband was estranged.

I felt very uncomfortable about the whole thing, and I certainly don't think an estranged husband should hold more sway with the courts than loving parents.

I also found the fact that they were denied access to her when she died a strange cruelty. Obviously, there's been some bitterness between the husband and the parents, but to not allow a mother to be with her child at the moment of that child's death is terrible. Unless there's some bizarre legal reason for it.

And I agree that starving to death is hardly a dignified death - it's horrible, and there's no proof that she didn't suffer.

velcrobott · 31/03/2005 22:50

So should medical science do everything to keep you alive ?
What about letting go, death does not have to scary or bad...

Trifle · 31/03/2005 22:50

I dont think the situation would ever have come to light if the ex husband and her parents had not had opposing views with regard to her right to life. I cannot possibly understand how the husband who has since married someone else can have overal responsibility for her welfare. This should have been anulled when he remarried. I feel desperately sorry for the womans parents who, because of the law, had no legal rights over their own daughter and had to permit an ex son-in-law to make decisions as that is what the law says he was allowed to do. I cannot possibly imagine what God or any religion has to do with this whatsoever, just another opportunity for them to whip up into a frenzy of religious rightousness.

Caligula · 31/03/2005 22:50

But I agree with VB it's not the government's role to interfere in individual cases.

velcrobott · 31/03/2005 22:51

They are going to do an autopsy I heard... to see how brain dead she really was... both sides agree to the autopsy.

Caligula · 31/03/2005 22:53

What? He was actually married to someone else? WTF was he doing being involved then? Who the hell was he in this woman's life? I had no idea of all this (haven't really be following it closely) - he was talked about in the media as her husband, not her ex.

Jesus, I'm sure lots of women's exes would be delighted to sentence them to death. I didn't realise the law actually gave them that power though.

velcrobott · 31/03/2005 22:55

I can't believe he was re-married as he was not divorced and she wasn't dead !

Tinker · 31/03/2005 22:55

Didn't know he was remarried, just thought he had a new partner and had kids with her. Thought he had been fighting for 7 years to get to this. Don't think he was estranged when she became ill.

expatinscotland · 31/03/2005 22:55

if she were brain dead she would not have been able to breathe on her own.

her husband wasn't married to the mother of his children; then he wouldn't be able to get her life insurance when she died. now he'll get all that and then some.

Caligula · 31/03/2005 22:56

I'm not in favour of people being kept alive forever artificially, but in this particular case, it just seemed there was an awful lot of doubt as to whether she was "living dead" as it were.

Does anyone remember that case, maybe about a year ago, where a man who had been in a coma for seventeen years woke up? I bet if he'd had a wife, she'd have wanted to take his tubes out too, so she could move on with her life.

mamadadawahwah · 31/03/2005 22:56

I wonder why she was bulimic? Was it because he was awful to her and eroded her self esteem? He looks like a bully and has evil eyes.

OP posts:

Caligula · 31/03/2005 22:57

He doesn't sound like the good guy in all this does he?

Why the hell couldn't he have just divorced her?

mamadadawahwah · 31/03/2005 22:58

Control freak.

OP posts:

Tinker · 31/03/2005 22:59

The guy who woke up from his 19 (?) year coma was still in a pretty bad way. His mind was stuck at teh age when he'd gone into a coma and he would never improve. Was bed-ridden, could hardly speak. Still more or less comatose but "awake" as it were.

sobernow · 31/03/2005 23:00

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Caligula · 31/03/2005 23:01

I've often wondered what happened to him, and how the family fared afterwards.

aloha · 31/03/2005 23:01

I also feel very dubious about all this. He stood to gain a lot of money, and why didn't he divorce her when he was living with another woman and had children with her. Um, wouldn't be the money, would it?
I think allowing someone to die is different to killing them. I think taking out someone's feeding tubes is killing them. Also, a living will is one thing, hearsay from a man with money to gain is quite another.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.