3 ms·

His consort? Sheesh, I guess you still have pretty strong opinions about that case. I still don't know most of these details, and have forgotten most of what

by jtheory 13y ago

His consort? Sheesh, I guess you still have pretty strong opinions about that case. I still don't know most of these details, and have forgotten most of what I learned at the time, and honestly that's for the better. It's none of my friggin' business, except that it highlighted some serious problems in the US legal system. And we could have learned about that problem without ever hearing the name "Terri Schiavo" or knowing anything about the personal lives of her & her family. Until the problems are fixed (if they can be), it's important to make a living will. It shouldn't be left to your husband and parents (and the news anchors, and higher elected officials of your country) to battle each other over who has more right to say what should happen to your brainless body. Make sure the people who need to know understand roughly what you want, and who you trust to make decisions on your behalf about palliative care, life-prolonging treatments, etc.. Google has lots of advice, free templates, etc.. Wikipedia says Terri was brain-dead for 15 years before she finally died. I don't think I know anyone who'd want their body kept alive that long. I know I would not.

LordKano 13y ago
Yes, I still get very angry about that case. We watched the legal system assist her husband in euthanizing her. Saying that Ms. Schiavo was "brain dead" is an inaccurate description. Terri was severely brain damaged. She was in a persistent vegetative state. She exhibited a profound loss of brain mass. She would have never recovered but she wasn't brain dead either. Brain dead people don't react to their mother's voice. Terri did. Brain dead people don't track moving object. Terri did. It's not like she was on life support. They gave her food and water through a tube. She breathed on her own and her heart beat on its own without any external assistance. She wasn't allowed to die; she was starved to death and again, that makes me angry.
- jtheory 13y ago
  I'm not sure reading the wikipedia entry is the best way to get info on a case; but from what I understand based on the autopsy, etc., the majority of her brain had been destroyed (simply liquid in the CT scan), and while she had enough left to breath and have her heart beat, she didn't have enough for, say, a swallow reflex. There was apparently 6 hours of video that her parents cut down to about 6 minutes that seemed to show her reacting to her mother; but the judge who watched the whole thing didn't have that impression (and the majority of the doctors evaluating it also said she was in a typical persistent vegetative state). Maybe she did have enough brain left to occasionally have some low level of awareness? I can't pretend to know. But if I were in that state, I would certainly not have wanted to be kept alive as long as she was; I would want to be euthanized. Perhaps you would not, and I certainly don't know what Terri would have wanted. But that's my point, really -- people have different ideas on how to make these decisions, and it shouldn't have been left in the hands of her husband, family, etc.. If my wife wants to move on with her life -- remarry, whatever -- and I'm in a state like Terri Schiavo was, I sure as hell don't want it to be her decision whether I live or die, based on vague memories of what I've said in the past. I'd far rather my wishes were clear, and she could let me go with as little trauma as possible.

by jtheory 13y ago

LordKano 13y ago

Yes, I still get very angry about that case. We watched the legal system assist her husband in euthanizing her. Saying that Ms. Schiavo was "brain dead" is an inaccurate description. Terri was severely brain damaged. She was in a persistent vegetative state. She exhibited a profound loss of brain mass. She would have never recovered but she wasn't brain dead either. Brain dead people don't react to their mother's voice. Terri did. Brain dead people don't track moving object. Terri did. It's not like she was on life support. They gave her food and water through a tube. She breathed on her own and her heart beat on its own without any external assistance. She wasn't allowed to die; she was starved to death and again, that makes me angry.

jtheory 13y ago
I'm not sure reading the wikipedia entry is the best way to get info on a case; but from what I understand based on the autopsy, etc., the majority of her brain had been destroyed (simply liquid in the CT scan), and while she had enough left to breath and have her heart beat, she didn't have enough for, say, a swallow reflex. There was apparently 6 hours of video that her parents cut down to about 6 minutes that seemed to show her reacting to her mother; but the judge who watched the whole thing didn't have that impression (and the majority of the doctors evaluating it also said she was in a typical persistent vegetative state). Maybe she did have enough brain left to occasionally have some low level of awareness? I can't pretend to know. But if I were in that state, I would certainly not have wanted to be kept alive as long as she was; I would want to be euthanized. Perhaps you would not, and I certainly don't know what Terri would have wanted. But that's my point, really -- people have different ideas on how to make these decisions, and it shouldn't have been left in the hands of her husband, family, etc.. If my wife wants to move on with her life -- remarry, whatever -- and I'm in a state like Terri Schiavo was, I sure as hell don't want it to be her decision whether I live or die, based on vague memories of what I've said in the past. I'd far rather my wishes were clear, and she could let me go with as little trauma as possible.