TexasTiger 12,998 Posted March 27, 2005 Share Posted March 27, 2005 But, given the vehemence with which he has been fighting to prolong Terri's life, it is a little surprising to learn that Robert decided to turn off the life-support system for his mother. She was 79 at the time, and had been ill with pneumonia for a week, when her kidneys gave out. "I can remember like yesterday the doctors said she had a good life. I asked, 'If you put her on a ventilator does she have a chance of surviving, of coming out of this thing?'" Robert says. "I was very angry with God because I didn't want to make those decisions." http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1077219,00.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChattanoogaTiger 0 Posted March 28, 2005 Share Posted March 28, 2005 several random thoughts on this article from th UK The term Christian Right is used 6 times (as if this was somehow a derogatory term) as well as the term "Brother Bush". The writer definitely has a agenda by using these judgemental terms 'If you put her on a ventilator does she have a chance of surviving, of coming out of this thing?'" Robert says The implication from this statement is the mother was in failing health and the decision was made to not institute futile life sustaining measures. This not the same as discontinuing therapy after it is instituted (ie discontinuing life support) Why was there a law suit earlier? If Terri had a arrest at home where is the malpractice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auburn85 432 Posted March 28, 2005 Share Posted March 28, 2005 Just curious, but what's the point behind this article? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChattanoogaTiger 0 Posted March 28, 2005 Share Posted March 28, 2005 Just curious, but what's the point behind this article? 153017[/snapback] Not sure I could tell either hence my random thoughts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiger88 934 Posted March 28, 2005 Share Posted March 28, 2005 The article is an overview of the whole case. The paragraph cited is the last one of the story. He is just saying that it is a little ironic that he pulled the plug on his mother and is now so upset about his son in law wanting to do the same on his daughter. That's oversimplifying it a little. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChattanoogaTiger 0 Posted March 28, 2005 Share Posted March 28, 2005 The article is an overview of the whole case. The paragraph cited is the last one of the story. He is just saying that it is a little ironic that he pulled the plug on his mother and is now so upset about his son in law wanting to do the same on his daughter. That's oversimplifying it a little. 153020[/snapback] again there is a difference in removing life sustaining therapy and not instituting it in the first place (at least I read the last paragraph that way). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auburn85 432 Posted March 28, 2005 Share Posted March 28, 2005 Thanks guys for the responce. I'll pass on TT going from a conservative to a democrat though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiger88 934 Posted March 28, 2005 Share Posted March 28, 2005 The article is an overview of the whole case. The paragraph cited is the last one of the story. He is just saying that it is a little ironic that he pulled the plug on his mother and is now so upset about his son in law wanting to do the same on his daughter. That's oversimplifying it a little. 153020[/snapback] again there is a difference in removing life sustaining therapy and not instituting it in the first place (at least I read the last paragraph that way). 153021[/snapback] There are differences and there are similarities as well. The last parargraph does say that he elected to turn off the life support system. It is a little confusing the way it is worded as to whether the life support system was ever actually used. The first of the paragraph makes you think it was. The last quotes from her father are confusing as to whether it was or not. Either way it would seem a little hypocritical whether he elected to turn off the life support or to simply not use it all and now villifies his son in law for wanting to shut down terri's life support efforts when she has been in a vegetative state for 13 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,998 Posted March 28, 2005 Author Share Posted March 28, 2005 Thanks guys for the responce.I'll pass on TT going from a conservative to a democrat though 153022[/snapback] My first vote for President was GHWBush in the 1980 primary. In 2000, I supported McCain. If Hagel gets the nomination in 2008, I'll consider him, since he is one of my favorite politicians-- probably the straightest shooter in the Senate. I support much of what the Republican party once stood for. Now it only stands for maintaining power at any cost. Any other priniciples have become impossible to discern, as evidenced by the mismash of contradictory positions in recent years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auburn85 432 Posted March 28, 2005 Share Posted March 28, 2005 I like how you just categorized the whole Republican party. I mean I'm sure Boxer, Kennedy, and Dean don't stand for everything you stand for Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,998 Posted March 28, 2005 Author Share Posted March 28, 2005 I like how you just categorized the whole Republican party.I mean I'm sure Boxer, Kennedy, and Dean don't stand for everything you stand for 153032[/snapback] I'm sure they don't stand for everything you believe they stand for, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChattanoogaTiger 0 Posted March 28, 2005 Share Posted March 28, 2005 The article is an overview of the whole case. The paragraph cited is the last one of the story. He is just saying that it is a little ironic that he pulled the plug on his mother and is now so upset about his son in law wanting to do the same on his daughter. That's oversimplifying it a little. 153020[/snapback] again there is a difference in removing life sustaining therapy and not instituting it in the first place (at least I read the last paragraph that way). 153021[/snapback] There are differences and there are similarities as well. The last parargraph does say that he elected to turn off the life support system. It is a little confusing the way it is worded as to whether the life support system was ever actually used. The first of the paragraph makes you think it was. The last quotes from her father are confusing as to whether it was or not. Either way it would seem a little hypocritical whether he elected to turn off the life support or to simply not use it all and now villifies his son in law for wanting to shut down terri's life support efforts when she has been in a vegetative state for 13 years. 153024[/snapback] I agree that it is confusing, however as a physician there is a huge difference between discontinuing support and not starting it in the first place. However my experience is in pediatric critical care not adult. Unfortunately I see this scenario too often. One possible explanation for the "hypocrisy" is guilt on the son's part for with holding therapy on his Mom This is very a sad situation and I think we could all agree that we would like to keep the federal government (state and local for that matter) out of the decision making process between physician and patient Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,126 Posted March 28, 2005 Share Posted March 28, 2005 It does amaze me that some here can be so utterly heartless and w/ out thought as they so casually discuss the lives of people they'll never meet. Also, how is this a political fight? It isn't, either way, except for the idiots who only see the world that way. Pathetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigermike 3,048 Posted March 28, 2005 Share Posted March 28, 2005 She was 79 at the time, and had been ill with pneumonia for a week, when her kidneys gave out. Oh, since Terri's kidneys were giving out it was ok to starve her! Oops, sorry her kidneys were working perfectly. But maybe if her heart was giving out! Nope, working fine! But maybe if her lungs was giving out! Nope, working fine! But maybe if her liver was giving out! Nope, working fine! Oh heck fire, just go on and starve her to death. The hypocrisy is contemptible. Save the whales! Save the purple amoebae's! Save the polar bears! Save the trees! Save the snail darters! Save the Perdido beach mouse! But God forbid saving a human being. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,998 Posted March 28, 2005 Author Share Posted March 28, 2005 She was 79 at the time, and had been ill with pneumonia for a week, when her kidneys gave out. Oh, since Terri's kidneys were giving out it was ok to starve her! Oops, sorry her kidneys were working perfectly. But maybe if her heart was giving out! Nope, working fine! But maybe if her lungs was giving out! Nope, working fine! But maybe if her liver was giving out! Nope, working fine! Oh heck fire, just go on and starve her to death. The hypocrisy is contemptible. Save the whales! Save the purple amoebae's! Save the polar bears! Save the trees! Save the snail darters! Save the Perdido beach mouse! But God forbid saving a human being. 153049[/snapback] Whose hypocrisy? You make it sound like animal rights fanatics are insisting this woman be starved. I've missed that. Who is this addressed to? If its me, you missed my point in posting this article, which, BTW, I think betrays a certain bias against Mr. Shindler. I think this is a complicated, difficult and personal matter. I'm sure it was complex and difficult when Mr. Shindler faced it with his mother, when Tom Delay faced it with his father, when we faced it with my Grandmother when repeated attempts to "save" her left her begging the doctors to let her go, and with all involved in the case of Terri Schaivo. Are there differences? Sure. Are the similarities? Yes there are. Reasonable people may differ on what should happen in such a case. None of us on this board know all there is to know regarding the facts, or the details of all the legal challenges. I don't know if I would have ruled differently if I sat in Judge Greer's chair, because I didn't hear and see all he heard and saw, or all the other 22 or so judges that have weighed in on this case. I don't have enough information to conclude that any of them are bad people, though, or that each and everyone of them didn't agonize over their decisions. And I don't know exactly how I'd feel if I was personally involved in this case. But I do know that the condemnations of judges and family members are flying fast and furiously among people who seem to know little more, and sometimes less, than I do. If anyone thinks that laws should change to clearly address future cases, write your legislators. I'm sure most judges would prefer to have such cases made easier for them by having clearer guidelines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auburn85 432 Posted March 28, 2005 Share Posted March 28, 2005 I think there were 57 democrats that wanted to keep Terri alive. Are those Dems part of the Republican party you disbanned from? Or are they part of the religious right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlue72 0 Posted March 29, 2005 Share Posted March 29, 2005 TT, I'll bet you never thought you would see me agree with you, but I do on this issue. What is the difference in never implementing "life prolonging" measures and turning them off when it becomes obvious that there is no congnitive brain function? I have faced this decision with my mother and as someone who has been diagnosed with a terminal condition, I've thought a lot about it for myself. I saw my father in law lie in a hospital bed, while his wife insisted on doing everything possible to keep his body alive after he was "revived" far too late to keep his brain function. Fortunately for him, his body gave up after a few days in that condition. My personal struggles are the reason that I've remained relatively quiet about this issue. I cannot imagine anyone who would wish to be left in the condition that this woman has endured for the last 15 years. To do so would be incredibly cruel and inhumane. It seems to me that her family, both husband and parents, are fighting over something other than what is best for her. Maybe it is the money that she was awarded for her care; I don't know. In any case, the fight became bigger than the victim, and the lawsuits that followed, caught the attention of the politicos and that took us where we are today. I just hope the poor woman can rest in peace, but then I believe she has been for 15 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiger88 934 Posted March 29, 2005 Share Posted March 29, 2005 It does amaze me that some here can be so utterly heartless and w/ out thought as they so casually discuss the lives of people they'll never meet. Also, how is this a political fight? It isn't, either way, except for the idiots who only see the world that way. Pathetic. 153047[/snapback] Your passing judgement on others could be seen as the most pathetic thing of all by some. Not by me, I try to accept people for who they are and not rush to holier than thou judgements based on what they say so I can feel better about myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiger88 934 Posted March 29, 2005 Share Posted March 29, 2005 The article is an overview of the whole case. The paragraph cited is the last one of the story. He is just saying that it is a little ironic that he pulled the plug on his mother and is now so upset about his son in law wanting to do the same on his daughter. That's oversimplifying it a little. 153020[/snapback] again there is a difference in removing life sustaining therapy and not instituting it in the first place (at least I read the last paragraph that way). 153021[/snapback] There are differences and there are similarities as well. The last parargraph does say that he elected to turn off the life support system. It is a little confusing the way it is worded as to whether the life support system was ever actually used. The first of the paragraph makes you think it was. The last quotes from her father are confusing as to whether it was or not. Either way it would seem a little hypocritical whether he elected to turn off the life support or to simply not use it all and now villifies his son in law for wanting to shut down terri's life support efforts when she has been in a vegetative state for 13 years. 153024[/snapback] I agree that it is confusing, however as a physician there is a huge difference between discontinuing support and not starting it in the first place. However my experience is in pediatric critical care not adult. Unfortunately I see this scenario too often. One possible explanation for the "hypocrisy" is guilt on the son's part for with holding therapy on his Mom This is very a sad situation and I think we could all agree that we would like to keep the federal government (state and local for that matter) out of the decision making process between physician and patient 153045[/snapback] I definitely see what you are saying here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.