I have spent an eternity saying this.

[conuly]

Terri Schiavo is not on life support. She does not use a ventilator. I don't know where that story started, but here it ends. She is not hooked up to any machines. She uses a feeding tube. That is not life support. Taking her off the feeding tube will cause her to - slowly - starve or dehydrate.

There is evidence that she reacts to things around her. There is also evidence that her condition would be drastically improved if the money from the settlement had gone towards her treatment instead of her husband's court bills.

So please, base your opinions off of accurate information.

And now, I will let other people talk about being in situations where they were believed dead, and post those links (links I've posted before) about other people who nearly died because "after all, she's not going to recover, might as well pull the plug now" - and at the time, they were conscious.

Comments

[wodhaund.livejournal.com]

Don't forget that the moment he could, he married another woman.

Although...I think there may be a question of whether he did that legally or not (being married to two women at once) but I can't recall. That may have been thrown out.

Personally, if there is such a thing as "scum of the earth" I am inclinced to think that Mr. Schiavo is it.

[conuly]

No, he didn't marry her, I think. That's why he can't divorce his wife, because 1. he wants to be married in the church and 2. if he does, and marries somebody else, he won't inherit.

Now, it may be that he believes he is doing the right thing. However, I don't think the evidence points in that direction.

[l33tminion]

If he was scum of the earth, why would he not have taken the million dollars and fled. He's an unfortunate man who's wife died 15 years ago, and has since been in legal limbo because her body kept on living.

[wodhaund.livejournal.com]

Aaah, that's right, that's right. I'm mixed up, aren't I. I remember now.

That's the tricky thing. One may begin to believe that what one says is the truth. And that's when things become truly frightening. It's impossible to reason with someone who "believes the truth".

[maladaptive.livejournal.com]

God, thankyou, thankyou!

I'm really torn on if she's there or not. It's always conflicting information on both sides (but I lean toward the fact that she's responsive). Supposedly, he became an in home nurse for her according to one timeline, but he never seemed to bring it up before, so I don't know. That's not what really bothers me about the debate.

What always horrifies me is that they're to starve her to death. Not even a humane end. Because euthanasia's wrong. Talk about the irony....

[conuly]

Because he gets a substantial inheritance anyway, and if he takes the money he *really* looks bad. That's like *admitting* it's all about the inheritance.

As for "died 15 years ago"...

http://www.ragged-edge-mag.com/extra/wokeup.html

Man, that's gotta suck. To be awake, and have everybody convinced you're still in a coma - and, technically, dead. Good thing that can't happen more than once or twice a century, right?

[wodhaund.livejournal.com]

I don't believe that at all, I'm afraid. His wife is still alive, and still exhibits that. Although her body is technically a vegetable (much as I hate that term), she is still mentally active and aware. Clumsy, yes, but aware.

By the same token, then, would you consider a stroke victim to be "dead"? Or a person in a coma? How about a preemie baby who has to be under 24/7 surveillance because it is that unstable?

I would imagine he has not "fled" with the money because, as was said above, he believes he is doing the right thing, but moreso because he would feel guilty if he simply walked away. Doing things this way, even though it means his wife's death, allows him to leave with a clean conscience. (This is, of course, my opinion, and yours is yours, so may we agree to respectfully disagree?)

[l33tminion]

I haven't worked out exactly where I draw the line, but I can say for sure that I consider anyone who's been unconscious for more than a decade to be dead.

Also, guilt is usually not the defining trait of scumbags.

[l33tminion]

If he was really a scumbag, he wouldn't care.

[conuly]

He might care about public opinion, but not his wife.

[l33tminion]

If he didn't care about his wife, he would have turned over right of attorney to her parents and gotten a divorce. Then he wouldn't be involved in the whole mess.

[conuly]

But then he wouldn't inherit.

[l33tminion]

I'm sorry, your position just doesn't make sense. If he's doing this for money or convenience, he could have taken the money and walked away. More money and less trouble.

[conuly]

It does make sense.

Right now, he can say "I want the best thing for my wife", and people like you believe him. Even people who disagree with him say "well, maybe he really means it". So he looks like a suffering saint. And if this should happen to cause him to get several hundred thousand dollars in inheritance, so much the better for him, right?

But if he takes the money and walks away, now he has a bit more money, sure, and he doesn't have to wait for his wife to kick the bucket - but now the entire world thinks he's an asshole, including the people who agreed with him before.

So he could want the money, but not enough to have the entire world hate him.

[wodhaund.livejournal.com]

Scumbags have guilt. They're just better at justifying it and pushing it onto other people. I've had the unfortunate delight of living with one in the past.

[eofs.livejournal.com]

Last Friday I had a workshop with a cameraman. One of his pieces he showed us was a section from a programme about being buried alive. A woman in the 60s (I think) who collapsed in the cinema and showed all signs of being dead. She was prepared and put in the morgue and stuff and woke up in there.

[l33tminion]

What evidence do you have that he is lying? You're so quick to demonize the guy, and you've never even met him!

[l33tminion]

Agreed. Euthanasia would be better than starvation.

(frozen)

[lizziey.livejournal.com]

actually, connie, the feeding tube, in a way is still life support. her life is supported only by being on the feeding tube. without it, she will die, thus, it is a form a life support.

(frozen)

[conuly]

...

And if she were a diabetic, and had to take a shot of insulin every day, would you say she was on life support?

[conuly]

I didn't say he was lying. I said that he had a potential ulterior motive - several of them, really - and when you asked me to enumerate these motives, I did. Repeatedly.

(frozen)

[lizziey.livejournal.com]

no, then it would be a medication, as the person would be concious, and there are actually other ways to control even severe diabetes (my aunt marylou has it, and is allergic to something in the needles her doctor gave here, and can;t afford different ones). Insulin is a medication, not something basic one needs to survive, basics being, air, food, water...

[theshiversbaby.livejournal.com]

In the same vein as what the user above wrote - what, exactly, is the definition of "life support" if not (more or less) a piece of equipment or machinery that keeps you alive when in a comatose or brain dead state? I suppose that's a bit rough and I'm sure you'll find it's full of holes, but you see what I'm getting at.

A feeding tube is a machine. Were she taken off of that machine, she would die. How, then, is this not life support? Can the phrase "life support" only be used in reference to a ventilator?

[conuly]

I don't make the definition, I just use it. Probably, though, because you can survive quite a long time without food and water... and she could, with effort, most likely be fed another way.

(frozen)

[conuly]

Insulin *is* something basic one needs to survive, Liz. Trust me, that's what diabetes is all about, realizing you need insulin...

Okay, what about a pacemaker? Or an iron lung, like people who had gotten polio used to be put in? They were conscious, so by your definition, that's not life support.