It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Judge Orders Feeding Tube to Be Removed

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 10:31 PM
link   
After seven years of battle between the parents of the brain-damaged Ms. Schiavo and her husband, the Judge has ruled in favor of the husband to remove the patient's feeding tube on March 18 at 1.00 p.m. According to the Mr. Schiavo, his wife has commented several times against being kept artificially.
 



www.nytimes.com
The judge, George Greer of Pinellas-Pasco Circuit Court, set the removal for 1 p.m. on March 18. The parents of the woman, Terri Schiavo, had requested an indefinite delay to seek new medical tests for their daughter, who they believe is aware and does not want to die.

Ms. Schiavo suffered extensive brain damage after her heart stopped beating briefly in 1990, possibly as a result of a chemical imbalance. She had no living will, but the courts have accepted her husband's testimony that she had told him several times that she was against being kept alive artificially.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


According to the patient's parents, Mr. Schiavo wishes to marry another woman, with whom he currently resides with.

I don't think any case could be clearer than this. Mr. Schiavo wants to marry someone else, so he wants her dead. Not only that there are accusations of abuse of Ms. Schiavo.

I wonder why the Judge ruled in favor of him, while there are doubts of abuse of the patient and her husband sleeping around.




posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 11:16 PM
link   
Your in fantasy land. If there were allegations of abuse, why are they turning up now? THe politicaly motivated government departments are going to investigate this? :shk: What abuse? Don't you think that the family would have had the media crawling all over it before it got to this point.

She did not want to live like a GORK on life support, why is it so hard to accept? Terri's parents are keeping her body alive for thier issues not hers PERIOD.



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 11:37 PM
link   
I agree with FredT on the abuse allegations. My question has to do with his wanting to remarry. Why is the family saying that he only wants her dead so he can marry his live-in girlfriend? Why would she have to be dead for this? Can't he simply divorce and remarry? (I haven't been following this story.)



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by SourGrapes
I agree with FredT on the abuse allegations. My question has to do with his wanting to remarry. Why is the family saying that he only wants her dead so he can marry his live-in girlfriend? Why would she have to be dead for this? Can't he simply divorce and remarry? (I haven't been following this story.)


If he divorces her... would her parents then be in control of her fate?



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 11:48 PM
link   
I've read that Terry Schiavo was awarded over $1 million in a medical malpractice suit, and that as it stands, her husband will inherit whatever is left. Perhaps that is why he has not gotten a divorce.




The feud has taken on elements of a soap opera, with allegations that it began as a fight over more than $1 million awarded to Terri Schiavo in a medical malpractice case which her husband stood to inherit.

CTV


[edit on 25-2-2005 by Duzey]



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Duzey
I've read that Terry Schiavo was awarded over $1 million in a medical malpractice suit, and that as it stands, her husband will inherit whatever is left. Perhaps that is why he has not gotten a divorce.




The feud has taken on elements of a soap opera, with allegations that it began as a fight over more than $1 million awarded to Terri Schiavo in a medical malpractice case which her husband stood to inherit.

CTV


[edit on 25-2-2005 by Duzey]


The key word in this is "stood" to inherit. Many years of medical care would surely dent this settlement. I truly believe Mr. Schiavo wishes to let his wife come to peace and move on. I know I could not stand to look at my wife the way he has for many years.



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 11:59 PM
link   
I agree that I would not want to see a loved one go through this. Every single member of my family has a 'living will', and have discussed it with each other to make sure our wishes are known. Of course, that's no guarantee, but I know I wouldn't want to be kept on life support. When this situation came up with my aunt, we respected her wishes and let her go in peace.

And after the medical bills, there probably won't be much left over, unless she had really good insurance.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by dcgolf
I truly believe Mr. Schiavo wishes to let his wife come to peace and move on. I know I could not stand to look at my wife the way he has for many years.


This is a tough one, for sure! By removing her feeding tube, she'll essentially starve to death. I'd hate to think of a loved one dying in such a way; however, I'd hate to think of a loved one living in such a way as well.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 12:02 AM
link   
Add to that that Mr. Schiavo has fathered 2 children with the woman he currently lives with, claims that the Catholic church will not allow him to remarry in The Church if he divorces Terry.

This case, IMO is selfishness on the part of Mr Shaivo to get his money and go on with his life. It is also a case of starving a person to death that is NOT, I repeat NOT on life support. She is simply on a a feeding tube.

Her parents do not stand to get any of this money, yet believe in the sanctaty of life, they have no selfish interests at heart here. They believe she can be rehabilitated. Several medical experts have looked at her case and believe this also. There have been more than a few cases of people coming out of this and leading normal lives.

What is the harm in allowing a woman to continue to receive nourishment?


Originally posted by Duzey
I've read that Terry Schiavo was awarded over $1 million in a medical malpractice suit, and that as it stands, her husband will inherit whatever is left. Perhaps that is why he has not gotten a divorce.




The feud has taken on elements of a soap opera, with allegations that it began as a fight over more than $1 million awarded to Terri Schiavo in a medical malpractice case which her husband stood to inherit.

CTV


[edit on 25-2-2005 by Duzey]



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 12:09 AM
link   
After looking at this thread again, I just find it sad that this poor woman may be in this state due to an eating disorder, and the fight is over removing her feeding tube.

I don't know why; that just seems sad to me. It's too bad she couldn't have gotten the medical help she needed, when it could have really made a difference.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 12:13 AM
link   
The husband was on TV some months ago and stated that any insurance money has long been eaten up by medical bills.

As far as the Catholic church being unwilling to marry him if he divorces her, well, what does the church say about removing the feeding tubes? That whole argument is bogus, anyway, since he has committed adultery and has fathered children with the other woman. So all of a sudden he's concerned with the church? Give me a break.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by sosuemetoo
This case, IMO is selfishness on the part of Mr Shaivo to get his money and go on with his life. It is also a case of starving a person to death that is NOT, I repeat NOT on life support. She is simply on a a feeding tube.


You will always find one or two doctors that will say WHATEVER for a few $$$$ at anyrate the parents are keeping her alive because of "thier" issues not Terri's.

A feeding tube is life support period. SUre not as dramatic as say a vasopressen drip or HFOV, or ECMO, but it is life support.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 12:36 AM
link   
Conservatives really need to figure out where they stand on the implications of the sanctity of marriage contract they supposedly hold so dear.

Unless that's all just some meaningless backdoor tripe to relieve a little homophobic stress, that man speaks for his wife. Period. Not the parents. Not some church. Not the government. And not any of us.

You don't get to decide his motives. They don't even matter. When rendered in this state all her decision making was rendered to him.

His motives could simply be...

I want to get on with my life, and Terry would want me to as well, we took an oath to care for each other and represent each other's best wishes, she chose me to do so for her before God and man, her Father gave her to me, the government approved it, and on her behalf she wants all you people to shut the hell up and get out of our relationship which continues today as a Holy bond no man or mouthy group of interlopers can put asunder.

Anyone not married to Terry Shiavo really has no standing in the matter.

I seriously can't believe the level of moral authoritarian interloping deemed acceptable these days. And by "conservatives" no less. What happened to you people?

What's the harm in allowing a 7 year victim of such progressive debilitation to continue receiving nourishment?

Nothing, if it's your call. But it's not!

Pardon my anger, but people around the country with nothing better to do than be manipulated by media and decide they know better how a man in Florida should care for his wife and what should be done with his money... :shk:

And they call themselves conservatives. What is going on with you people?



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 12:46 AM
link   
Okay Rant, I'll bite.


Now, why do you have to bring politics into this? We're having such a nice and decent 'moral' conversation that you want to turn political.

I can see both sides (by 'sides' I'm referring to the husband and the parents, not political sides) of this horrible situation and am thankful I'm not having to make such a decision. I feel terrible for all parties involved in this.

I wonder if the courts could give him an anulment given the circumstances?



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by SourGrapes
Now, why do you have to bring politics into this? We're having such a nice and decent 'moral' conversation that you want to turn political.


But it is a political issue Sour as soon as Jeb bowed to religious pressure groups and he and Florida legislature ramrodder through a law specificaly designed for this case to prevent the husband from easing the pain of his wife.

Also politics is rearing its ugly head about the fact that she may have been abused. How long has she been at this facility? By all accounts she is surrounded by family nearly 24/7 where were the cries of abuse when they were winning cases? No the investigation is totaly politically motivated period.

Everywhere you turn there is a political angle to all of this. I pray for all of the "Terri" CRUSADERS here on ATS, that a loved one is allowed to comply with your end of life issues and your parents do not prolong your suffering :shk:

[edit on 2/26/05 by FredT]



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 12:53 AM
link   
More to the point, will the "Defence of Marriage" amendment protect Terri's husbands rights, or is an arbitrary thing to be decided at the whim of whoever is the flavor of the month?????



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 01:04 AM
link   
Okay Fred I'm still lost. Is it Conservative to let her live or die? When Rant said 'conservatives' who was he talking to?

Edit: Never mind.


[edit on 26-2-2005 by SourGrapes]



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 01:07 AM
link   
Like FredT said SourGrapes, unfortunately this case has been inextricably politicized from the get go and that's my complaint from a morality standpoint.

Believe it or not, my sympathies lie with the parents much more than husband (though that has no bearing on my opinion of the legalities of it).

I think the parents have been manipulated now for 7 years, given no opportunity to heal or even catch a breath and think clearly abou this.

I've seen what it's like for older parents of an adult child to go through this and it's devastating. I imagine it's all kinds of special to have websites supporting you, people paying your lawyer bills, radio and TV talk show hosts urging you on, groups organizing prayer vigils, sending you letters and e-mails and villifying your son in law to anyone that will listen (since we all know someone has to be blamed), but it's not healthy. They're victims here, just as much if not more than the husband...and TS. Remember her? She's entirely a secondary concern to everyone now I'm afraid.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by SourGrapes
Okay Fred I'm still lost. Is it Conservative to let her live or die? When Rant said 'conservatives' who was he talking to?


I wasn't talking "to" anyone just about the "life at any cost" crowd. Replace that for "conservative" if you like, but there's an intertiwned agenda IMO.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 01:15 AM
link   
Rant, you did an awesome job explaining emotions involved in this case. Thanks. You're right, the family really does need to move on. So does Terri.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join