Mar 25 2005
Just downright disturbing
As of early Friday, Terri Schiavo, 41, had been without food or water for almost seven days and was showing signs of dehydration — flaky skin, dry tongue and lips, and sunken eyes, according to attorneys and friends of the Schindlers. Doctors have said she would probably die within a week or two of the tube being pulled.
The woman’s husband, Michael Schiavo, says his wife would not want to be kept alive artificially, and he has been backed by years of court rulings affirming doctors’ diagnoses that Terri Schiavo lives in a persistent vegetative state.
The Schindlers appeared before a federal judge in Tampa late Thursday to make another emergency request that the feeding tube be reattached while they pursue claims that Schiavo’s religious and due-process rights were violated. U.S. District Judge James Whittemore previously rejected a similar request and said Thursday he would work through the night to issue his new ruling.
“It’s very frustrating. Every minute that goes by is a minute that Terri is being starved and dehydrated to death,” said her brother, Bobby Schindler, who said seeing her was like looking at “pictures of prisoners in concentration camps.”
Michael Schiavo’s brother, Brian Schiavo, strongly disagreed with that assessment, telling CNN that Terri Schiavo “does look a little withdrawn” but insisting she was not in pain. He added that starvation is simply “part of the death process.”
How nice. It’s just part of the death process. Here’s how the death process works for animals, in Florida:
828.05. Killing an injured or diseased domestic animal
(1) The purpose of this section is to provide a swift and merciful means whereby domestic animals which are suffering from an incurable or untreatable condition or are imminently near death from injury or disease may be destroyed without unconscionable delay and in a humane and proficient manner.
828.12. Cruelty to animals
(1) A person who unnecessarily overloads, overdrives, torments, deprives of necessary sustenance or shelter, or unnecessarily mutilates, or kills any animal, or causes the same to be done, or carries in or upon any vehicle, or otherwise, any animal in a cruel or inhumane manner, is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or by a fine of not more than $5,000, or both.
828.13 Confinement of animals without sufficient food, water or exercise; abandonment of animals
(3) Any person who is the owner or possessor, or has charge or custody, of any animal who abandons such animal to suffer injury or malnutrition or abandons any animal in a street, road, or public place without providing for the care, sustenance, protection, and shelter of such animal is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or by a fine of not more than $5,000, or by both imprisonment and a fine.
Isn’t it nice to know that Florida has on its books laws that prohibit doing to animals what’s being done to Terri Schiavo? I mean, I know the omnipotent Judge George Greer, who appropriately wears a black robe, says it’s okay to just starve a human being to death, but isn’t it funny how if you brought a skeletal dog to his courtroom, you’d get a possible jail sentence or a fine?
But nah, there’s nothing wrong with our priorities. After all, Terri wanted to starve to death. Judge Greer and Michael Schiavo said so.
Choose life.
March 25th, 2005 at 9:55 am
So starvation is “simply part of the dying process”. Perhaps for injured Lions on the Serengeti plains in Africa, but not for human beings in the wealthiest nation in the world with the best health care available to mankind. Brian Schiavo should keep his ignorant trap shut and not add to the Schindler family’s pain!
March 25th, 2005 at 10:38 am
We also don’t keep animals on life support systems for decades. I don’t think we do CPR for cats or dogs. we don’t go to the same extreme measures to keep our pets alive beyond what might have been a natural, but early death.
Broaden the question a bit. How do we deal with ANY human approaching the end of their life (which is what the law above describes: “whereby domestic animals which are suffering from an incurable or untreatable condition or are imminently near death from injury or disease”)?
Are there ANY laws on the books that prescribe a humane manner for “destroying” humans that are suffering from incurable or untreatable conditions? If not, then why not? And if not, then it’s not a reasonable comparison.
March 25th, 2005 at 10:42 am
I’m all for legsilation that says:
1. If you don’t have a living will, the presumption is life.
2. If you do, your wishes are honored to the letter regardless of objections from family, spouses, etc.
Why we codify that dogs must die quickly and efficiently, but leave a society where people can starve to death needs some serious examination.
March 25th, 2005 at 11:03 am
My guess is that it’s because we don’t afford dogs the same liberties as humans. Obviously. So to your point, because a dog does not have the liberty (or the congitive capacity) to make that decision, there are laws in place.
If there’s legislation that says a living will is the absolute word of truth, then you can expect all sorts of shady characters to get their feeble-minded but wealthy relatives to sign on the dotted line.
I do think there should be a balance of evidence that helps with making life or death decisions.
March 25th, 2005 at 11:11 am
On the flip side, I could be very vocal about my beliefs about remaining on extended life support systems. Multiple conversations with family and friends, maybe even journal entries, or poetry, or artwork that say I would rather die than be artificially fed, or respirated. I could have been interviewed about those beliefs on CNN, or posted thoughts on my blog.
But, again, if a living will is the sole arbiter for a court to decide on whether or not to pull the plug, and I don’t have one, then that’s just means I’ve been irresponsible, not that I would have chosen to stay on life support for my remaining years.
Two reasons why I think a living will isn’t the be-all end-all solution to this problem.
March 25th, 2005 at 11:54 am
Maybe the Living Will will never be the end all be all of the discussion regarding someone’s wishes. But this country really needs some kind of law on the books to prevent this from happening again. We don’t allow ‘he said she said’ in the criminal courts because that is reasonable doubt. But we are allowing it in the case of a disabled but otherwise healthy woman. There’s something wrong with the complete double standard our judicial system has.
And by the way, yes, CPR is performed on cats and dogs. I had a Siberian Husky that was dying and the vet did ‘mouth to mouth’ (with a plastic thing that goes over the dogs mouth) and chest compressions. They did every thing they could to save my dog’s life. In the end it was determined his liver was failing. As he was seizing it was determined that he would not last long and it would be best to put him down. I agreed to it. He was given a shot and passed within seconds. His condition was terminal, but we never even thought about starving him to death.
Anyway, I went off topic slightly there, but wanted to let ya know I have seen firsthand efforts made to prolong a dog’s life.
March 25th, 2005 at 1:29 pm
I agree.
March 25th, 2005 at 2:17 pm
RBK,
You bring up two good points.
A living will, that’s not “updated” daily can always be open to lawsuits, It can be said that the person in question changed his/her mind a couple of days, or even hours before they fell ill.
Regarding a law prescribing a humane manner for ending a person’s life. It would be a very difficult law to pass. Such a law would validate people like Dr. Kovorkian, and we know where he is right now. I don’t think that this country is ready or willing to do that in the near future. That’s not to say that it’s not a valid idea.
The only people who benefit from this chaos are the trial lawyers.
March 25th, 2005 at 2:18 pm
What Kevorkian does is downright heroic. I believe in the right to life, but if you don’t want to live, that’s your thing and you should be free to end your life under medical assistance if you so desire.
I never really got the whole “Kevorkian is evil” thing…
March 25th, 2005 at 2:44 pm
I hear you vinny, and I tend to agree. The whole “evil Kevorkian” thing stems from the belief that he was a bit “weird” and that he enjoyed his job too much.
March 25th, 2005 at 2:49 pm
Something that we normal folks get raises for?
March 25th, 2005 at 3:02 pm
At least Kevorkian helped people end their lives humanely. A little juice here, a splash of juice there - a nice lethal cocktail that ended life in a matter of minutes. I don’t think even Kevorkian would advocate a week+plus slow starvation and dehydration torturous death. It would be very very interesting to hear what he has to say about all of this.
March 25th, 2005 at 3:04 pm
Knowing him, he’d be horrified. He’s all about quick and painless.