Re: cruzan v schiavo what a difference a decade makes

Whenever a patient is unable to make decisions for themselves, a surrogate
decision maker needs to stand in their place. If the patient has not
specified such a surrogate in an advanced directive, the decision typically
falls to the closest family member, which is specified in each states laws,
which in Florida, is, in order, spouse, adult children, parents, siblings.

So her husband was her legal representative to make health care decisions
for her. And, he needs to make decisions based on what he thinks she would
want. If there is some disagreement about the decision she would make
between surrogates at different levels the care givers could just follow the
husbands word. Or they could go to court and let the court decide who is
making, to the best of the courts ability, what decision the patient would
make if the patient was able to make their wishes known, and if the decision
the husband was making in this case was not in accordance with the patient's
wishes, then the courts could appoint the parents as the decsion maker.

So a hearing was held. The family presented their evidence about Terri's
views, which was mainly based on conversations they had with her when she
was 11 or 12 years old, when they had been watching news about the Karen
Quinlain situation. And the husband, presented his evidence, which included
testimony from himself, and his brother and sister in law. And they
recounted testimony that had happened a few years earlier when Terri made
comments to the effect she "didnt want to be hooked up to a machine", and
she "didnt want to be a burden", and other things of a similar nature.

And the judge decided that there was CLEAR AND CONVINCING evidence that
Terri would not want to continue treatment in her condition. And of course
this decision was appealed, and the Florida cirucuit court upheld the lower
court ruling. But of course that was not the end of it even then.

So, you are incorrect in your statement that husband that decided her fate.
Technically Judge Greer decided her fate. Her husband wasnt the only one
that testified to that effect either.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu>
To: "Robert Schneider" <rjschn39@bellsouth.net>; "jack syme"
<drsyme@cablespeed.com>; "Glenn Morton" <glennmorton@entouch.net>;
<ASA@calvin.edu>
Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2005 3:27 PM
Subject: RE: cruzan v schiavo what a difference a decade makes

Terri Shiavo's fate was decided by her "husband" not the courts.

Moorad

________________________________

From: Robert Schneider [mailto:rjschn39@bellsouth.net]
Sent: Sun 3/27/2005 2:08 PM
To: Alexanian, Moorad; jack syme; Glenn Morton; ASA@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: cruzan v schiavo what a difference a decade makes

As has been amply testified by competent medical experts on several
occasions in courts of law, Terry Schiavo does not have "normal, human
reactions," and cannot have them in a persistent vegetative state. The idea
that she is being given morphine so that she cannot react normally to the
withdrawal of nutriants implies also that her medical caregivers are engaged
in a comspiracy to take her life, contrary to law and medical ethics. I
find that suggestion utterly unbelievable. Even if any of her caregivers
were of such a character, and I don't believe for a minute that they are,
the intense media focus on this case should deter anyone from acting in this
manner. The fact of the matter is that Terry Shiavo's fate was decided by a
competent judge in state court whose decisions were upheld by every superior
court, state and federal, and thus her present status is under the guidance
of the decision handed down by the judge.

Bob

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu>
To: "jack syme" <drsyme@cablespeed.com>; "Glenn Morton"
<glennmorton@entouch.net>; <ASA@calvin.edu>
Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2005 12:07 PM
Subject: RE: cruzan v schiavo what a difference a decade makes

> What is the reaction of someone in her state to death by thirst and
> starvation? It may be that she is being given morphine to temper down
> normal, human reaction to being slowly killed.
>
> Moorad
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of jack syme
> Sent: Sun 3/27/2005 10:28 AM
> To: Glenn Morton; ASA@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: cruzan v schiavo what a difference a decade makes
>
>
>
> That question is more of a philosophical one than a physiological one.
> There is no question that there are opiate receptors in the still
> functioning subcortical portion of the brain. It seems likely that
> without
> a cortex however she is experiencing no pain. The key word being
> experiencing, and the assumption that it takes a cortex to experience
> anything. But, the morphine would have its intended physiological
> response.
>
> The use of morphine will likely make her appear peacful and comfortable.
> It
> is probably really more of a treatment that is making those around her
> feel
> better than it really is making Terri Schiavo's experience any different.
>
> Knowing what your opinion of this matter is, I suspect that you are
> skeptical of its use. But using morphine in this situation is completely
> routine. It is part of what are called "comfort measures". It is used
> whenever treatment is withdrawn, and the patient is dying.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Glenn Morton" <glennmorton@entouch.net>
> To: <ASA@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2005 9:08 AM
> Subject: RE: cruzan v schiavo what a difference a decade makes
>
>
>> Just curious. Why would they give morphine to a woman who is so brain
>> damaged as not to be capable of feeling pain? The news reports now say
>> they are giving Schiavo morphine. Is there a physiological reason for
>> this?
>>
>
>
>
>
Received on Sun Mar 27 20:37:11 2005