What Will Michael Schiavo Do?

[realtraveller]

drmomentum said

That would be ironic if one considered a marriage to be of little significance. Just being married to someone says something about how you feel about that person. People in marriages have plenty of recourse to make their wishes known if they don't trust their spouse to uphold those wishes. There's divorce. There are legal means they can avail themselves of while remaining married.

In lieu of any of that, the law, neither surprisingly nor ironically, falls back on the vows these two people made.

-JP

But you could say the exact same thing about the division of a person's assets after death. If you don't have a will, your spouse, no matter how loving or committed doesn't get any say over how the assets are divided.

The irony has nothing whatever to do with marriage. It has to do with the type of evidence courts find reliable and persuasive in the two different situations.

When it comes to money, nothing but a written will, witnessed by two people, will do.( Or in some states a handwritten will).

When it comes to one's life, hearsay, self-serving, oral testimony is good enough to determine one's fate.

[theworm[$]]

realtraveller said

When it comes to one's life, hearsay, self-serving, oral testimony is good enough to determine one's fate.

Everyone should have a will - if they don't, it was a choice not to have one and default to the states rulings. Are you suggesting that the state should have a standard operating procedure for how to deal with a person in a permanent vegetative state who doesn't have a living will, power of attny, health proxy, etc?

[jgibson2[$]]

theworm said

Everyone should have a will - if they don't, it was a choice not to have one and default to the states rulings. Are you suggesting that the state should have a standard operating procedure for how to deal with a person in a permanent vegetative state who doesn't have a living will, power of attny, health proxy, etc?

Maryland more or less does. If you don't have a POA and you don't have a next of kin, we'll spend buckets of tax dollars to do everything for you. At least that used to be policy. I found that out 10 years ago when I was working IV therapy at another hospital. It was quite enlightening. Gotta write that advance directive in case they have trouble locating a relative -- but at least I've got lots of those.

[drmomentum[$]]

realtraveller said

But you could say the exact same thing about the division of a person's assets after death. If you don't have a will, your spouse, no matter how loving or committed doesn't get any say over how the assets are divided.

Lawyers.com said

If you have a spouse but no children, your entire estate will go to your spouse.

That sounds like quite a bit of say to me.

But even if it weren't that way, it would be because there are specific rules about the distribution. You couldn't say the same exact thing unless somehow the rules were equivalent. But the situations are not equivalent.

You would have more of an argument if the state DIDN'T ever take marriage into account. But it does. So it counts for somehting. Expecting it to suddenly count for nothing... that's ironic.

The irony has nothing whatever to do with marriage. It has to do with the type of evidence courts find reliable and persuasive in the two different situations.

The comparison is weak, and the irony doesn't appear to me to exist. Are you arguing that marriage shouldn't count for anything in any of these cases? The situations aren't equivalent, so consistency isn't the issue. What role are you arguing that marriage should or shouldn't play?

When it comes to money, nothing but a written will, witnessed by two people, will do.( Or in some states a handwritten will).

You appear to simply be plain wrong here, in the case of Florida anyhow. And in the case of most states, I'm reading that marriage is taken into account in the distribution of the estate.

When it comes to one's life, hearsay, self-serving, oral testimony is good enough to determine one's fate.

The testimony does not exist on its own, in a vacuum. Whether you like it or not, it exists in the context of the marriage.

As for self-service, suddenly disregarding marriage to achieve one's ends is the hight of self-service.

-JP

[hadassahchana[$]]

Does anyone know what kind of therapy she was supposed to receive? I'm just curiuos as to what could be done for someone in a vegatative state. That seems to be one of the main points which people hold against Michael Schiavo, but I'd like to know what kinds of treatment were denied to her.


Cindy

[frazzledspice]

Because I know two people who are in this or similar conditions, I know that physical therapy is important to help keep the muscles from atrophying, and the hands and feet from turning inward. Legs can get spasms and cramps.

My friend who has slight, occasional responses has tried Botox treatments. They have relaxed her muscles, and, amazingly, she has been able to respond and even sing songs with us when she isn't so clenched and tensed up. Now they have put in a baclifen pump (spelling is probably wrong) which gives her measured amounts of muscle relaxants during the day.

Almost alll patients with traumatic brain injuries have seizures, and most take quite a bit of seizure medication.

Imagine if you were in this state. Perhaps there is some cognitive activity, but it takes so much energy out of you just having all those clenched muscles.

Then, besides that, you're so doped up that you're hearing things through a cloud.

That's how I think it is sometimes with my friend who has been in this state for four years (and we have been able to break through and communicate with her sometimes.) If I took large doses of seizure medication, I probably wouldn't respond that well, either.

[realtraveller]

[quote=drmomentum]That sounds like quite a bit of say to me.

You use one weak example. In California if the intestate person has a spouse and children the estate will be divided half and half, 1/2 to the spouse, 1/2 to the children.

Doesn't matter that the deceased said over and over that "she didn't want the children to get a dime", if she didn't put it in writing her wishes are disregarded.

I think the Florida legislature is considering a bill that would require people to have a written directive to have a feeding tube removed. In other words, there would be a presumption in the law that a person in Terri's position would want to be kept alive by continuing to be fed and hydrated. That presumption could only be countered by a written directive not to be kept alive with a feeding tube.

[theworm[$]]

I think that there should be a clear system of who has the power to make these decisions if there is no written directive. I think that the spouse should be the first on that line.
At the same time, I think we need to make it much easier for everyone of age to complete the required paperwork. I went to an attorney, and it cost me a small fortune to have my paperwork done. I'm sure that there was a cheaper way, but.... There should be standardized forms readily available - maybe at the post office or at banks - and it should be easy for people to make their wishes known. Of course the papers would need witnesses and probably a notorized signature to minimize fraud.

[jgibson2[$]]

You can find blank forms in various places on the internet. Are they legal in your state? I don't know. Certainly they'd be taken into consideration in any court case if they were properly witnessed and notarized, even if they weren't binding.

[theworm[$]]

But we need to make it easy for EVERYONE. While most people have access to the net now, many still don't and many don't know how to navigate it. It needs to be easier for everyone and it needs to be legal and recognized in all states.

[jgibson2[$]]

Recognized in all states isn't going to happen -- 10th amendment.

HOWEVER, I'm pretty sure that if you went into your local library, you could get the librarian to help you find a book with documents for your own state.

That's not easy enough for many people, though. They simply will not do it.

If you put the documents into people's hands and had a notary standing by, many people would give you a look and walk away. They can't think about the possibility of such an event. That's why it's so important for the courts to listen to family members -- even if they make decisions I find abhorrent.

[mjfrombuffalo[$]]

Hospital social workers often have Health Care Proxy forms and Living Will forms. (and BTW, make sure your doctor and attorney get a copy of any HCP or LW form you complete!)

My church did an Adult Sunday School on HCP, LW and Power of Attorney. The lawyer explained everything, had plenty of forms there along with two notaries, and almost everyone completed their forms in the 1/2 hour after the class.

[hadassahchana[$]]

Page with links for Living Wills for various states.


Cindy

[mjfrombuffalo[$]]

Not to sound like a broken record...

DO A HEALTH CARE PROXY TOO.

for forms:
http://www.massmed.org/AM/Template.c...ContentID=3027

to understand the difference between health care proxy and living will:
http://www.massmed.org/AM/Template.c...ContentID=3031

massmed said

A Health Care Proxy designates another person to make medical decisions should you be unable to do so, and a Living Will allows you to list medical treatments that you would or would not want if you became terminally ill and unable to make your own decisions.

There are, unfortunately, many situations where you might not be terminally ill, but unable to make your own health decisions. Like when Cynthia Nixon's character on ER had that stroke - her husband had to decide if she should have a risky surgery that could possibly relieve her stroke. It wasn't a feeding tube or other end-of-life decision and therefore not covered by a Living Will.

[realtraveller]

I wonder how it came to pass that the feeding tube was inserted initially.

Surely the doctor's would have had to ask consent from the husband. He must have given it at the time.

Why didn't he speak up then and say Terri didn't want any feeding tube?

[erik_kosberg]

I wonder...

Surely...

He must have...

The progression from idle curiousity to certainty without any hard facts to show the way.

[realtraveller]

A recent story out of Oregon seems somewhat relevant to this discussion.

The state published its 2004 statistics on assisted suicide recently. Just 37 people used it. These are people who still have their mental faculties but who are terminally ill and in great pain. It would have been interesting to know what percentage that is out of the total of terminally ill people, but it strikes me as very, very low. In other words, very few people opt for assisted suicide even when the pain is intense and there is no hope for survival.

My point, I suppose is, that most people want to live no matter how great the pain and how tenous the hold on life is, even for only a few more days or weeks.

The law should presume that people want to live and should only remove feeding tubes etc. when a valid written document states so.

I agree with the post saying that these documents shouldn't require an expensive lawyer's visit, but should be easily available.

[jgibson2[$]]

realtraveller said

I wonder how it came to pass that the feeding tube was inserted initially.

Surely the doctor's would have had to ask consent from the husband. He must have given it at the time.

Why didn't he speak up then and say Terri didn't want any feeding tube?

That's an excellent question and I think I can speculate about the answer. The daughter of a friend had a ruptured aneurysm several years ago. When her rehab was started, her family was told that most of her recovery, with intensive therapy, would occur in the first year. Michael Schiavo may well have been told something similar. My friend's daughter is very much aware of her surroundings, and can communicate. She can't do much for herself at all, though.

Even if you knew a loved one would prefer death by starvation or dehydration to life the way Terri Schiavo is living, you might want to give them that initial chance at whatever recovery is possible. It would not surprise me to hear that Michael Schiavo wanted to give Terri a chance at recovery while there was reasonable hope. The main differences that I see between him and Terri's parents are 1. He no longer hopes for her recovery; and 2. He doesn't share their belief that removing the feeding tube is equivalent to murder.

[realtraveller]

Anyone else see the CBS movie "Saving Milly" on Sunday night? Milly Kondrake, wife of Mort Kondrake, had Parkinson's disease. Eventually she was no longer able to eat. Initially, she said that she wanted to die and did not want the feeding tube inserted. But when the time actually came, she opted for the feeding tube and a natural death.

What people say they want when the choice is just theoretical and they never think it will really happen to them and the choices they make when the situation is at hand are often two different things.

[jgibson2[$]]

realtraveller said

What people say they want when the choice is just theoretical and they never think it will really happen to them and the choices they make when the situation is at hand are often two different things.

I've joked for years that I'll have "Do Not Resuscitate" tattooed on my chest eventually. One person told me she'd met a nurse who'd already done that. I'm not sure the paramedics would pay attention, though.

[lynnzop[$]]

Quote: