Terry Schiavo

[Shellback]

The other thread basically dealt with the govt. intervention, and some folks replied it was a family decision. I do agree it's a family decision, but who should have the final say, a spouse, or the parents? I've got a living will, and would not want to be kept alive, but in Terry's case I think the parents should have been awarded custody. They brought her into this world, and they should have been allowed to make the decision.

[fishingpox]

You are 100% right.

The other thread basically dealt with the govt. intervention, and some folks replied it was a family decision. I do agree it's a family decision, but who should have the final say, a spouse, or the parents? I've got a living will, and would not want to be kept alive, but in Terry's case I think the parents should have been awarded custody. They brought her into this world, and they should have been allowed to make the decision.

[tool]

If they made an exception for Mrs. Shiavo, then that would set precedent for every other parent/spouse disagreement about who has the final say in a married spouses affairs. I personally would hate to think that my wife's authority over what happens to me would be taken away from her and given to my parents. I love my parents and have a good relationship with them but when I decided to marry my wife, it was for better or worse in sickness and in health. That includes her making decisions for me should I be placed in Mrs. Shiavo's condition.

The Bible says in Genesis Chapter Two Verse 24: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh".

To me this means that when you are married you become one with each other. Therefore, if one of you does not have the capacity to think for yourself, the other part of you (your spouse) takes over that function for you. This is the essence of two people becoming one in the bonds of matrimony.

Clinically, Mrs. Shiavo was considered "brain dead". This brings another important question into account. What does one consider dead? Is death the absence of a beating heart? Or, does death involve the absence of a functioning mind? I believe in Mrs. Shiavo's case, one would have to consider her dead in mind but not in body. Therefore, it would be up to interpretation of the law and of the Bible as to if Mr. Shiavo had fulfilled his obligation in their wedding vowes "till death us do part".

I do not agree with Mr. Shiavo fathering two children with another woman out of wedlock but I can sympathise with him if I were in that position. I think the parents have made Mr. Shiavo out to be a cold blooded murderer. But, I believe that Mr. Shiavo took all the facts into consideration and took a long hard look at what the hard facts of the case were and decided it was time to let Mrs. Shiavo go on to her eternal resting place. I would think that most people in his position would have done the same thing.

The fact of this case, in my opinion, boils down some very concerned parents fighting with a husband who had the final say. As a father, I can understand how the parents feel. I would not want to say goodbye to my daughter. I would probably also have unrealistic hopes and expectations that my daughter could get better. To me, the parents in this case were going more on gut reaction, sensationalism, unobjective thought, and unrealistic expectations. They demonized Mr. Shiavo and made him out to be the devil incarnate. This alienated themselves from any decision making capacities that ultimately left them out of the room when it came to Mrs. Shiavo's last moments on earth and they only have themselves to blame.

As a parent I realize that based on Biblical interpretion and legal interpretation, I would have to resign myself to the fact that whoever my daughter chooses to marry (if she marries) will become her legal guardian should something happen to her. As I stated earlier, that goes back to the "one flesh" passage in the Bible.

[fishingpox]

The murder of certain groups of defenseless and innocent people bears no criminal penalties whenever the government refuses to acknowledge, or directly sanctions, the slaying.

Terri Schiavo is not the first innocent victim of murder sanctioned by judicial fiat, although the heroic efforts of her parents alerted the world about her heartbreaking death sentence.

Almost four decades ago, the fallacious concept of "brain death" was introduced to pry open the legal doors to the killing of another group of unnoticed innocents - people who agree to donate their vital organs at death.


Deeply compassionate people are encouraged to consent in writing to allow another person to benefit from their vital organs, such as the heart or liver, after they die. Potential donors overcome their discomfort about the procedure by imagining they will be giving away unneeded organs from their cold, lifeless bodies. But the real situation is often quite different.


According to the testimony of Dr. Paul Byrne, a neonatologist from Toledo, Ohio, to a Pontifical Academy of Sciences meeting in Rome in February:


"All the vital signs of the donors are still present prior to the harvesting of organs, such as: normal body temperature and blood pressure; the heart is beating; vital organs, like the liver and kidneys, are functioning; and the donor is breathing with the help of a ventilator."


Since organs deteriorate rapidly after the moment of actual death, the "brain death" fiction allows them to be removed while they are still alive and usable for transplant.


Those who defend the removal of organs in this way may agree that the donors are actually alive in the traditional sense, but then argue that "brain death" means the quality of the donor's life is so poor that the benefits of transplanting their organs to extend the life of another outweighs the cost of killing them in the process.


The usual meaning of the word "death" is twisted for the benefit of people who have an interest in declaring a dying person dead as soon as possible. Such interested third parties could include family members, like Michael Schiavo, who want guaranteed legal immunity when they discontinue life-prolonging measures.


But this article focuses on another group of "brain death" beneficiaries: those who have an interest in collecting vital organs to transplant.


Let's reiterate that many transplants don't require the death of the donor – such as blood transfusions, bone marrow transplants, skin grafts, and living kidney transplants; these wonderful medical innovations are not at issue here.


Most of us don't need a certified expert to ascertain that someone is really dead. When a person has no heart beat, isn't breathing and has rigor mortis, we know that person has died.


When none of these symptoms prevail, we view the person as alive.


The concept of "brain death" gets around these inconvenient facts and allows professionals to declare someone dead who, to other observers, shows signs of life.


Since so many scientists, experts and physicians are involved, "brain death" has the superficial appearance of a medical diagnosis based on strict criteria. Not so.


Dozens of different sets of criteria have been published since the concept first emerged in 1968 with the publication of the article "A Definition of Irreversible Coma" in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Numerous and varying sets of criteria about what constitutes brain death leave the field wide open for abuse or "different interpretations."


When a person is truly dead, the brain cells don't generate nerve impulses or EEG signals. But the converse, that no brain signals means no life, isn't true. Many people with brain trauma or oxygen deprivation such as from a stroke or water filling the lungs (pulmonary edema) have had no detectable brain waves yet regain full consciousness later once oxygen returns to the cells. In these people, brain cells are temporarily too weak to generate nerve impulses or EEG signals.


Obviously, removing a person's beating heart kills that person. Sometimes the heart is transplanted and beats on in another person. So, is it OKto take a beating heart from one person, as long as that person is declared brain dead, and transplant it in someone else who might die without it?


We say "No." In a culture of life, the answer would tend in the direction of preserving rather than taking life.


But our culture is shifting to a standard that allows the killing of a weak person whose quality of life is arbitrarily deemed inferior so that another person might benefit.


If a person, even a child, signs an organ donor card and doctors provide a diagnosis of brain death, that person's liver or beating heart can be removed.


Vehicle registration forms, driver's license applications and other public documents provide tick boxes allowing people to give an advance directive to donate their organs. If the person is incapacitated or a minor, qualified relatives can also give the required permission. These directives typically state that the donor will provide the organs "after death," but without defining what constitutes death.

This is not informed consent. It's an insidious deception cloaked in high-sounding altruism.


Whether a person is unborn, disabled or extremely ill, we hold that the life is sacred and is our most fundamental freedom. Let no law or person in our nation demand the life of an innocent person under any pretext. Life is worthy of our insistent, determined and unrelenting protection.

Those of us who call ourselves Christians,What would Jesus do in this case?

[Eager Beaver]

On this matter I would have to agree with Tool. The bond between a husband and wife is far more intiment than that of your parents. You will talk and disclose far more personal things to a spouse than you would to a parent. A spouse is just an extention of ones self. As drimatic as this speckical has been it is still something between a Husband and wife. Who was paying the Dr. and Hospital bills? I would almost bet it wasn't anyone that wanted to keep her alive. Was this about who was to get the lawsuit settlement? That was brought up several times by the parents.

[tool]

Michael Shiavo paid the bills with the million dollar settlement they got from the doctor who "misdiagnosed" her chemical imbalance that led to her persistent vegatative condition.

[Hoot]

Pox -

" Life is worthy of our insistent, determined and unrelenting protection"

Curious if in your view this extends to those on "death row" ?

[Shellback]

In a truly good marriage, yes, the couple bonds as one. But after reading comments from folks here on the board, and all other walks of life, that ain't neccessarily true. I'm sure there are a whole lot of spouses that would gladly pull the plug! I'm not sure what I would have done if I was in Terry Schiavo's husbands shoes. Would I have commited to letting her pass on because at one time she said she didn't want to live that way, or would I have let her parents take her back?

[tool]

If you are in a marriage that is that bad then you should leave now before it's too late LOL. Or, if you don't trust your spouses decision making ability, then you'd better get yourself a living will quick and let everyone around you know what your wishes are.

I realize that with all things there are good and bad things. There are good days fishing and bad. There are days when everything goes right and you end up with a limit and there are days when the boat won't start, you loose a rod or two, you get bit by the neighbors dog (LOL), your trolling motor shaft breaks, etc.. etc..., but if you are in a bad marriage and it is possible to get out, you'd better do it. Life is too short to spend being miserable.

All things are relative to each person's situation they are in. In the Shiavo case, none of us will know what the exact dynamic was between Mr. Shiavo, Mrs. Shiavo and the parents. However, one thing is for certain, the courts recognize the spouses signifigance in the final decision making process. So, if you don't want to leave anything to chance, get a living will. End of story.

[tool]

In a truly good marriage, yes, the couple bonds as one. But after reading comments from folks here on the board, and all other walks of life, that ain't neccessarily true. I'm sure there are a whole lot of spouses that would gladly pull the plug! I'm not sure what I would have done if I was in Terry Schiavo's husbands shoes. Would I have commited to letting her pass on because at one time she said she didn't want to live that way, or would I have let her parents take her back?

He could have given the care and decision making over to her parents. But, from what I have heard on the news and read about, he was truly interested in carrying out her final wishes. I haven't seen or read anything definitive that there was anything for him to gain in allowing her body to die. In fact, he was offered large sums of money to turn over his power of attorney to the parents which he flat out refused to do. If his decision was based on money or other mitigating factors, then my outlook on this would be different. However, based on the law of the land, whatever was driving his desire to have her removed from the feeding tube is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is it was his decision to make because they were married and he was her husband. Had she not been married, then certainly the courts would have more than likely granted power of attorney to her parents. However, I think the courts will continue to back a spouses wishes in cases like this over parents every time unless a clear case of abuse or other extinuating circumstance can be documented and proven.

Further, I believe the House and Senate should not have stepped into this mess and the President should not have stepped into this mess. The whole point of the republican party is to push for less federal government in our lives and more control and power at the state level. This case was not good for them. I consider myself a republican because that is how I vote 95 percent of the time. But, I wholeheartedly disagree with how this was handled. It should not have been the circus it was. And, I feel very let down by the Republican party because they should not have put their nose into something that is a private family issue that was already resolved at the State level.