Numerous cable stations have covered the recent news about the Terri Schiavo case. Schiavo is the woman who is in a hospice with severe brain damage. There is a dispute between the parents and the husband as to whether her feeding tubes should be removed. A good recap of the timeline of events is here:

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html

The parents are fighting the husband's attempts to have her feeding tubes removed. She is not on life support, only feeding tubes.

I am trying to figure out why the husband is fighting so vehemently to have the tubes removed. He says he is fighting to have Terri's wishes respected. But I don't believe it. There was a 1 million dollar settlement (tax free) won in her med mal case and if she dies he gets what is remaining. If guardianship goes to the parents so that they can make her decisions he is cut out of the money.

Personally, I believe people's wishes to die in such circumstances should be respected if it is in writing and very clear. In this case, nothing was in writing and all is based on oral testimony. In addition, we have people who want more than anything that she remain alive and are willing to take full responsibility in every way for her. I see no reason to push to have her starved to death.

Question for Debate:

Should the parents be granted guardianship of Schiavo? If not, why not?

Can she live without the feeding tubes? No. So the feeding tubes are, in essence, keeping her alive. The court considered this a "life prolonging medical procedure" -- in the same way that life support is a "life prolonging medical procedure." So, as regards the specifics of the case, the fact that she isn't on life support but is being kept alive by feeding tubes is irrelevant -- a "life prolonging medical procedure" is keeping her alive.


And you don't think, in the almost 7 years this case has been fought in the courts, that this issue has come up?


The law doesn't reflect that in this case. And, in this case, the law regarding "life prolonging medical procedures" was upheld as constitutional. This is why everyone should have a living will. I don't, but this case is making me reconsider that.


What is important is to determine what Terri would've wanted. It seems to me, that this happened.

Should the parents be granted guardianship of Schiavo? If not, why not?

No. Terri's wishes have been determined by the court... not her husband, not her parents. The court is now, and has been for the last few years, the surrogate decision-maker when it comes to Terri's wishes regarding the continuation of her life through medical intervention. Considering the fact that the people around her can't agree and Terri can't make the decision for herself, I think leaving that to the court is the best option.

I don't understand why the court would make this decision when the parents so desperately want to care for their daughter and keep her alive. The state isn't paying to keep her alive-- the one million dollar settlement is paying her costs. IMO the court should not step in and mandate death when the parents want to keep their daughter alive and have the means to do it.

Because it isn't the parents' decision to make. Is it humane to keep someone alive in a vegitative state, in which they will enjoy no quality of life whatsoever, from which the individual is not likely to ever recover? The law in this case states that if it is determined that an individual wouldn't want that to continue living in that manner, they shouldn't be forced to. Why should the parents have any right to make that determination? Just so that they can feel like they still have their daughter? They lost her. They lost her 15 years ago to what appears to be bulimia. The question is not whether the courts should respect the parents' right to care for their daughter. The question is would Terri want to have her life prolonged in this way. Every judgement since this thing began states that she wouldn't. And this is about Terri's rights not her parents'. Being that Terri can't make the determination herself, the court should step in and see that her rights are being respected.

The husband has stressed that Terri would not want this, and told him so. Assuming for debate that this is in fact true....would that not change your opinion? Then the case becomes one of whose wishes are more important, the person's involved or their 'surviving' relatives. Further, among them who then has more say...the husband, or her parents? There are a great many underlying issues here. Normally, I disregard many of these types of cases, because, while great stories, they have almost no relevance in the grand scheme of things. This case does seem to be a watershed case for several factors. It will be interesting to see how it turns out. Note: I am not disagreeing with your basic premise (why terminate someone when costs/care are willing to be assumed). Just throwing out some of the mitigating factors.



The article I read yesterday stated that Terri does react to family contact, laughing, crying, etc. While I have doubts about this (how could someone that coherent be unable to eat?), assuming this is at least possible it reverses the question: Is it humane to kill someone who has these capabilities, regardless of further prognosis?

I guess this is probably a separate thread, but I'll throw this question out anyway. If you were alive, but otherwise incapacitated, would you want someone to kill you? It's easy to say you would...but would you really? I myself don't know for sure. While I have no desire to be a burden on anyone, or to live in a state in which I am not cognizant of my surroundings, I am also very stubborn and optimistic. So, I'm not really sure. Also, if it was your child or parents involved, would that change your opinion? Just something to think about when you're addressing this.

As entspeak said, this case should convince everyone to have a living will.

There are many problems here, for both positions.

Keeping Terri alive keeps her close relatives in a state of flux. Is her husband still married to her? (I'd assume so). Her being alive prevents him from moving on with his life. It prevents her parents from properly mourning her loss. Emotionally, it is a no-win situation for everyone involved.

It is understandable that Terri's parent do not want to let go of their daughter.

A Florida court ruled in 2003:


"Pulling the plug" is never an easy decision. In this case, the court has ruled that Terri would not have wanted to be artificially supported. Her husband agrees.

Should the parents be granted guardianship of Schiavo? If not, why not?

I'm going to agree with Amlord's and entspeak's assessments. It appears that Terri would not have wanted artificial life prolonging measures. Thus, "pulling the plug" is the only appropriate action. It seems pretty awful that it's taken so long for this to go through the courts, that the husband and parents are in litigious disagreement.

So to answer the debate question more directly: no. Why? Because the courts, the husband and Terri's wishes contradict the parents' wishes.

This is a tough one. Who decides to terminate life? Who determines when a person is concidered brain dead? Obviously her parents wanted her to stay alive, what is wrong with that. They have known her the longest and that is their flesh and blood. What I don't understand is why would someone push death upon someone they love. They are in no position to play god.
She wasn't expected to live that long, and what I understand is the main concern is how the husband truely felt. On one hand I understood that he wanted her best interests examined and maybe he couldn't see her like that anymore. Then there is the issue that he just wants the money. Well maybe he wants his life back as well. Maybe to him that wasn't the person he fell in love with, and felt she was already gone and needed closure. He also has physical and emotional needs as well, and he needed to move on to acheive those needs. I don't feel that justifies his actions or feelings regarding his decision. There were other options he could of considered. Maybe he should of just let the parents have custody. If his intentions were honest then the money shouldn't have been a factor. I would just hope that my husband would be there by my side the whole time, encouraging my well being.
This is a lesson to us all, have the paperwork done. If she was indeed brain dead, than she had already passed on and as her feelings are concerned it wouldn't matter if she stayed alive or not.

If it was money, maybe he was entitled to some of that money. I mean that was his wife, he has been put through enough. He is only human too. He suffered a great loss and maybe he felt that he lost her several years ago. I don't know? It just depends on his honest intentions, and only he knows them.

I feel as though this should not of been such a controversal issue, and that there are much more important issues that the government should be as involved in. This I blame on the media, of course. We are concerned with what the media wants us to be concerned with.

I do not feel as though the decision of Terry's life should be made by the court systems. She is a human being not a political issue. This is a human life and not a casual decision. This type of decision should be given to the family to decide, people who actually know her and recognize her as a person.
In addition to who decides and why, the method of taking out her feeding tube, is in my opinion inhumane! She was starved to death and also dehydrated. There is one thing to pull the plug and another to purposely use measures that induce suffering and depriving someone of their needs necessary to survive. She was not an act of Legislation but a human life. There are medical questions that still remain unanswered. Who is to say she had no feelings, or that she was in pain. We can't be positive, there are medical break throughs everyday and never under estimate the unknown or fate. It is a sad situation and I feel for her family.

Ask yourself this, would they have pulled the Pope's feeding tube?

We also have to look at other issues in our system. She is one person and not contributing to society, what about people that are alive and actually need aid from the government ? Whether it is counseling, financial aid, education, crime prevention, war, social security, these are what our tax dollars should go to. It should not of gone as far as it did.

Definately a tough one, and no one can decide what was right and what was wrong.