IF TERRI IS NEXT WHAT ABOUT YOUR OR I

Here is some additional info for everyone. This man waited 8 years to see if anything could be done for his wife before he even considered taking out the feeding tube. With the cost of health care the $700,000 that was awarded from the malpractice suit is probably pretty much gone now anyway.

This info comes from AP by the way.

The following is the timeline in the case of Terri Schiavo, who first collapsed and fell into a coma in 1990. The conflict between Terri Schiavo's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, began in 1993, and continues to this day. The court bhattle began in 1998, when Michael Schiavo petitioned the court to remove Terri Schiavo's feeding tube.



- Feb. 25, 1990: Terri Schiavo collapses in her home. Doctors believe a potassium imbalance caused her heart to stop, temporarily cutting off oxygen to her brain.

- Nov. 1992: Terri's husband, Michael, wins malpractice suit against doctors who he say misdiagnosed his wife; jury awards more than more than $700,000 for her care, Michael receives an additional $300,000.

- Feb. 14, 1993: Terri Schiavo's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler have a falling out with Michael over the malpractice suit money and Terri's care.

- July 29, 1993: Bob and Mary Schindler file petition to have Michael Schiavo removed as Terri's guardian. The case is later dismissed.

- May 1998: Michael Schiavo files petition to remove Terri's feeding tube.

- Jan. 24, 2000: Trial begins over whether to remove feeding tube.

- Feb. 11, 2000: Pinellas-Pasco Circuit Judge George W. Greer rules feeding tube can be removed.

- Jan. 24, 2001: 2nd District Court of Appeal upholds Greer's decision.

- March 29, 2001: Greer rules feeding tube to be removed at 1 p.m. April 20.

- April 18, 2001: Florida Supreme Court refuses to intervene in the case.

- April 20, 2001: U.S. District Judge Richard Lazzara grants the Schindlers a stay until April 23 to exhaust appeals.

- April 23, 2001: U.S. Supreme Court refuses to intervene.

- April 24, 2001: Feeding tube is removed from Terri Schiavo.

- April 26, 2001: Pinellas-Pasco Circuit Judge Frank Quesada orders doctors to reinsert Terri's feeding tube; the Schindlers pursue lawsuit against Michael Schiavo, accusing him of committing perjury by saying his wife did not want to be kept on life support.

- April 30, 2001: Lawyers for Michael Schiavo file emergency motion with an appellate court asking for the court to order removal of Terri's feeding tube.

- June 25, 2001: 2nd District Court of Appeal hears arguments in case.

- July 11, 2001: 2nd DCA sends case back to Greer, ruling that Terri can't be taken off life support until after July 23.

- July 18, 2001: Schindlers ask Greer to let their doctors evaluate Terri before making a final decision on removing the feeding tube.

- Aug. 7, 2001: Attorneys receive Greer's order that the tube be removed Aug. 28.

- Aug. 8, 2001: Schindlers repeat request to Greer to allow their doctors to evaluate Terri.

- Aug. 10, 2001: Greer denies the Schindlers' evaluation request, as well as their request to remove Michael Schiavo as guardian.

- Sept. 26, 2001: Schindlers' attorneys argue before 2nd District Court of Appeal, citing testimony from seven doctors who say Terri can recover with the right treatment.

- Oct. 3, 2001: 2nd DCA delays removal of feeding tube indefinitely.

- Oct. 17, 2001: 2nd DCA rules that five doctors can examine Terri to determine whether she has any hope of recovery. Two doctors are picked by the Schindlers, two are picked by Michael Schiavo and one is picked by the court.

- Feb. 13, 2002: Mediation attempts fail; Michael Schiavo again seeks to be allowed to remove Terri's feeding tube.

- Oct. 12, 2002: Weeklong hearing begins in the case. Three doctors, including the one appointed by the court, testify that Terri is in a persistent, vegetative state with no hope of recovery. The two doctors selected by the Schindlers say she can recover.

- Nov. 12, 2002: The Schindlers' attorney says medical records suggest Terri's condition may have been brought on by physical abuse, and asks for more time to get more evidence.

- Nov. 22, 2002: Greer rules that there is no evidence that Terri has any hope of recovery and orders feeding tube to be removed Jan. 3, 2003.

- Dec. 13, 2002: Circuit Judge George W. Greer stays order to remove feeding tube on Jan. 3 until the 2nd District Court of Appeal in Lakeland reviews the case. A date has not been set for the court to hear the case.

- Dec. 25, 2002 The 2nd District Court of Appeals agrees to consider appeal by Schiavo's parents. Schedules oral arguments for April 4.

Edited because I posted before I read the timeline.

I fully support death with dignity and don't necessarily believe that her parents are acting in Terri's best interests either. They want their daughter, which is understandable, and her husband wants to move on with his life, which is also understandable. When families are in this situation its as if no one is alive at all - day in and day out you just sit and wait for any kind of improvement. When is it okay to live again??

Again, it's just hearsay and people's opinions that he is acting maliciously. It was 8 years before he moved to have her taken off of life support. Well after he was awarded any money.

i dont think its right for the government to decide to take away that...

if the husband is living with another women, the court should just grant a divorce, and give the money to the family..(if possible)

however i know if that were me, id probably want to be put out of my veggitable state years ago.not initially but after a year or two of trying little progress IMO

I also agree with having a living will, this will help prevent this type of situation.

I just think starving her is not the answer. Is she on other life support? Is she totally dependent on machines for everything or just feeding.

I think starving her to death is inhumane. I will never change my mind on this.

Question...If you don't experience (the feeling of or) hunger while in a coma, is it still starvation if the feeding tube (which provides caloric intake, nutrients) is removed?

In general this is the husband's choice to make, if they are still legally married. Once a person gets married, their spouse makes all those decisions unless otherwise stated. I'm actually a little surprised that a lot of people wouldn't want their spouse making that decision. I trust my husband with my life, literally, and if he ever had to make this difficult decision, I know that he would make the right one for all parties invloved.

Now with that in mind, it does appear in this case that the husband has moved on in his life, which you can't really blame him for. It has been 13 years. If he's ready to move on in his life, he should sign this right over to her parents and let them care for her. He should also return to them any money that was rewarded so that they can care for her. If they want to go through the pain and suffering of slowing watching a loved one die, that's their choice. I don't think the government made this choice. This is what happens when you have a legal battle in a decision like this. The court has to step in and issue a court order. I could be wrong, but I don't think the courts just decided to do this on their own.

It is a very sensitive issue and people have different views on how to handle the situation. Some people would want to stay 'alive' in any possible manner, others would say 'pull the plug' for lack of a better term.

my neighbor lost her husband this year, but he was in a vegitave state for 9 years. He was a wonderful healthy man. He and his wife were enjoying a wondeful vacation celebrating their anniversary. He told his wife he didnt feel good and wanted to lay down. He never woke up.

For 9 years she went to the hospital and visited him hoping that something would change. It was painful to watch this woman wake up everyday, visit her husband, then come home to her children and explain to them how their was no change in their father.

Finally after 9 years she accepted he was gone. She finally told the doctors to pull the plugs that were feeding him and helping him breath.

Sometimes its really hard just to sit there and see someone who used to be carefree and enjoying life laying in a bed with tubes running all over their body. Sometimes a person just wants to believe that they'll walk down the cold hospital corridoors to see their loved one in a chair watching tv and then when they actually do get there all they see is their loved one in that bed unresponsive at times.

People make the decisions they do for many reasons. For my neighbor it was she really believed he would wake up. For others they just cant bare the thought of another day their loved one laying there in pain.

My family and FH know that if I am in pain, suffering and their is absolutly no chance that I will recover to please let me go with dignity and not with a dozen tubes running all over me. If that means I am gone in a day, so be it. I have led a good life and I do not want to left in pain and I dont want my family to see me that way and they be in pain.

In college I took a course called grieving and dying in america. We talked about a subject like this and to sit and discuss it with other people and get everyone's views really puts into perspective your own thoughts and views.

---

Posted by butterfly20

i dont think its right for the government to decide to take away that...

---

it wasn't the courts decision...your spouse makes the decision...the court (gov't) is just upholding the husbands decision...

after reading more about this...I am siding more with the husband...

1. she told him before the coma that she would not want to be on life support

2. most of the money is gone...but he said that whatever is left he would donate to charity



for those who side with the parents...jeb bush is trying to intervene...so there may still be hope...

So I guess he got his way, they pulled her feeding tube

I have a living will, or something they call Advance Directives. You don't need a lawyer to do it. You just fill out the form, sign it, and have two witnesses sign it. My Health Insurance company provided it to me.

It says:

I direct my attending physician to withhold or withdraw treatment that merely prolongs my dying, if I should be in an incurable or irreversible mental or physical condition with no reasonable expectation for recovery.

These instructions apply if I am (a) in a terminal condition; (b) permanently unconscious; or (c) if I am minimally conscious but have irreversible brain damage and will never regain the ability to make decisions and express my wishes.

I direct that treatment be limited to measures to keep me comfortable and to relieve pain, including pain that might occur by withholding or withdrawing treatment.

While I understand that I am not legally required to be specific about future treatment if I am in the condition(s) described above, I feel especially strongly about the following forms of treatment.

(then you have to initial your choices from the following list):

I do not want cardiac resuscitation.
I do not want mechanical respiration.
I do not want tube feeding.
I do not want antibiotics.
I do want maximum pain relief.

Then you sign it, and there's also a place where you appoint someone to be your health care proxy.

The forms were FREE from my health insurance company.

I think this story just proves that we should ALL fill out these forms, give a copy to our husbands, and give a copy to each member of our immediate family. It might be a grusome subject, but it's worth it in the long run.

In Teri's case, there are just too many unclear facts for me to form an opinion. Whatever the truth is, it's a horrible situation.

Her parents are sounding whacker by the minute. Sorry. Understand they're under stress but come on. HIding her?

I heard the court papers say the parents can visit ONLY if the husband or his representative is present.

Hiding her? How do you hide a comatose woman and why bother?

Are her parents hiding her....or is her husband hiding her? I'm a little confused.