Skip to main content
Skip to main navigation
Skip to talk navigation

Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Saved Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Flip

1 2 3 4 5

News

TERRY SCHIAVO, Was her death necessary, or precedent?

111 replies

mamadadawahwah · 31/03/2005 22:28

I am sickened by the american government's failure to act to protect the weak and vulnerable and worry that Terry's death is just a prelude to what is going to happen in the future, despite living wills. Was her death a test case to see how the world reacts to shutting off life support? It was all so cold and something stinks about the whole thing. God Bless Terry and her family!. God knows what they must have gone through.

OP posts:

Report

velcrobott · 31/03/2005 23:01

mama - I think you drawing quick conclusions... many people are bullimic as teenagers !... she may have been insecure BEFORE she met him and who knows what happened in their mariage.

I find it incredible that we all want to throw a stone at this man... I am not saying he is a saint - I simply do not know... and I do not think the media is unbiased... and this case was listened to by judges who had far more info than any of us do !

aloha · 31/03/2005 23:02

You can get divorced - I'm sure of it.

WideWebWitch · 31/03/2005 23:03

I didn't know much about this but I can't understand why the husband had any say in this either. Hang on, surely he gave up those rights when he went off and remarried? What was it to him? Apart from an insurance payout I suppose.

sparklymieow · 31/03/2005 23:03

There was a story in "take a break" last year where a hospital wanted to stop treatment for a boy with severe CP, saying he was dying. They were dripfeeding a drug which would shut down his body, his mother pulled the tube out and said that he wasn't going to die. 7 years on, he is still alive. How can anyone say who should and shouldn't die.
I hadn't heard of Terry till this thread came up (not really do the news) and I'm very upset by it

mamadadawahwah · 31/03/2005 23:04

Uh, sober, in this case, where a man i havent lived with for 14 years decides to pull the plug, well that changes everything.

I wouldnt want to die that way. And further if i didnt know any better and my parents wanted me alive, i wouldnt mind. I wouldnt really know the diff would I.

This isnt about the dignity of poor Terry. This is about Schiavo, the husband. Whats his first name anyway, Michael? cant remember.

Also, the priest, Fr Pavonne, is a very well known, and well liked priest in florida.

They really had a go at him.

OP posts:

velcrobott · 31/03/2005 23:04

www- he was not remarried.

Tinker · 31/03/2005 23:06

I agree with you velcrobott - don't really know at all. Talk of "evil eyes" doesn't help really. In fact, for such a god bothering nation as America isn't this not what you'd expect to happen. I don't think you can criticise teh guy for starting a new relationship at all

mamadadawahwah · 31/03/2005 23:08

Furthermore he is going to have Terry cremated. So, if there are any attempts to do further autopsies, that will be impossible.

It has been alleged that he beat her.

OP posts:

Caligula · 31/03/2005 23:09

I think the fact of his estrangement from her is enormously relevant, both morally and (should be) legally.

And anyone with a pecuniary interest in someone else's death really ought not to have the deciding voice.

velcrobott · 31/03/2005 23:09

There is an autopsy scheduled and asked BY him!

Caligula · 31/03/2005 23:10

I don't criticise him for starting a new relationship, but I would criticise him for fighting against her parents to make her die.

velcrobott · 31/03/2005 23:10

Caligula - the judge did... not the husband... and judges were not born yesterday !

WideWebWitch · 31/03/2005 23:10

I agree Caligula. So why was it up to him? Because he was technically still married to her?

Caligula · 31/03/2005 23:11

No, but judges may have other agendas apart from his, as mdmm (whatever the initials are) has implied.

velcrobott · 31/03/2005 23:12

Like what?

aloha · 31/03/2005 23:12

I wouldn't criticise him for starting a new relationship....but I would criticise him for being so very, very eager to kill her.

Tinker · 31/03/2005 23:13

He was her legal guardian

velcrobott · 31/03/2005 23:13

Hang on Aloha.... it has taken 7 years to get to this.
BTW good debate on this now on Question time.

sobernow · 31/03/2005 23:14

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

irishbird · 31/03/2005 23:14

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Caligula · 31/03/2005 23:17

Off to watch Question Time!

velcrobott · 31/03/2005 23:20

Well you've missed it !
They were all (I think) in agreement that the politicians should not gtry to influence a legal process.
Then everyone was quite sadden about the whole thing and hoping this would not happen in Brittain...

Flossam · 31/03/2005 23:30

I don't know much about the case, but, I don't think anyone could say that the lady had good quality of life. Sometimes your body can be very cruel and carry on going when it should dhut down. It is cruelty to keep this person going. Animals are put down and it is often considered humane. I have looked after many people who I wouldn't blame for wanting to take this course of action.

SparklyMieow - If that is true that is illegal and action should be taken against the hospital. I work in ITU where patients do have 'withdrawel' when only our interventions are keeping patients alive, and machines are turned off. But never is any drug used to bring on death. Extra painkillers may be given to keep the patient more comfortable , during which can be an uncomfortable time for the patient, but even these should only be given within normal prescribed limits so as to ensure the death has only been caused 'naturally'.

mamadadawahwah · 31/03/2005 23:30

Irish bird, very good question!!!

OP posts:

mamadadawahwah · 31/03/2005 23:32

Flossam from my understanding, Terry was not in pain. She had no "disease" as such. Also i dont think this was about alleviating Terry's suffering, it was about what was prudent for the husband for him to get on with his life. Terry was an obstacle.

Money was and is involved.

OP posts:

Flip

1 2 3 4 5

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.