[lbo-talk] Re: terri schiavo

Marta Russell ap888 at lafn.org
Tue Mar 22 17:16:52 PST 2005


I did not write that post. A lawyer wrote it. I stated that at the top of the email.

But to answer your question my mother died last year from pulmonary failure at age 74. When she became ill from pneumonia her doctor put her on a respirator and a feeding tube to see if she could get lung function back. I was with her during her stay in ICR. She had made it clear in writing that she did not want to live by "artificial" means and that if she could not come out of the hospital in better condition than when she went in that she wanted to die. She agreed to be respirated for 10 days and then the doctor was to do what was necessary to let her die. She could not speak for herself once she was respirated so I made sure that the nurses gave her enough morphine to keep her free of pain. It was a good thing too that I drove across the country to be with her (I use a power wheelchair and must have accessible transportation so I usually have to drive myself) because when I arrived at the hospital after 2 days of virtually nonstop driving and asked her if she was in pain she nodded yes. A patient ALWAYS needs a good advocate when in a hospital. When it became clear that she was getting worse my sister and cousin and myself urged the doctor to up the morphine. We did that again when it was time to disconnect the respirator. She died almost immediately after that. So yes, I do have concern that people do not needlessly suffer.

Marta


>i take it, from your reference to taking a gun, that you would not
>support a painless end, e.g., morphine overdose? many of us have had
>to make the choice between letting our loved ones suffer versus
>helping them die. i was fortunate enough to able to make this
>decision, with the help of doctors and hospice workers, without the
>scrutiny of moral hypocrites, political opportunists or clueless
>others. what i've heard about the shiavo case is that the husband
>stayed with the woman several years in her parents' house, where all
>of them tried to take of her until deciding (i.e. the parents too)
>that her needs were unbearable to them as her condition (i.e. a
>vegetative state) worsened. i've also heard that the husband tried
>everything that might improve her health and quality of life,
>including experimental treatment, and that he's done right by her
>from the beginning. if this is all correct, then it is not only
>wrong to judge him but criminally immoral for anybody to stand in
>his way.
>
>
>On Mar 22, 2005, at 2:20 PM, Marta Russell wrote:
>
>>>
>>>I know it's usually dumb to start asking the lawyers here to articulate
>>>the legal angle to these kinds of stories, but I can't stand it anymore.
>>>Is this case just full of shit or what?
>>>
>>>/jordan
>>
>>I cannot resist this one but it will be the last.
>>This is from a lawyer cousin of a friend of mine:
>>
>>
>>
>>I don't understand this one bit. If the judge said, it was okay to
>>kill this poor angel (which it is not), then take a gun and plug
>>her a few times and that would be (wrongly) that. But starve her
>>to death?? That's perfectly natural and appropriate only if your
>>care is being provided courtesy of the SS or Pol Pot.
>>If this lady was a convicted serial killer, condemned to die, the
>>Eighth Amendment would prohibit death by starvation. They'd have
>>to give her the chair, or lethal injection, or a firing
>>squad--i.e., something a bit more humane.
>>If this woman were a prisoner of war and the judge and her husband
>>were her "captors," under the Nuremberg Principles, they'd be
>>looking at twenty years in Spandau.
>>
>>There is no logic to this idea of death by "natural means." Maybe
>>they should just throw the woman off the top of the Empire State
>>Building and say that gravity killed her. Or fill her hospital room
>>with water and say that the floods swept her away. Stuff her in
>>a bag full of snakes. Nothing artificial about venom--it's even
>>organic.
>>
>>If her husband and the judge really thinks this is what she wants
>>and what is humane, I suggest that the judge stay his order for six
>>months. The judge and hubby could then be handcuffed to a bed and
>>starved. Like Dr. Mengele used to say, nothing sensational, no
>>twins or anything exciting, just no food or water for the rest of
>>their lives. Don't even talk to these guys for a reasonable amount
>>of time--say five weeks, then ask them how things are going. After
>>all, they can speak-- this poor woman cannot. Stick these guys on
>>CNN every nite. Have Larry King ask Hubby how things are going
>>since his body temperature passed 104 and his weight dropped to 71.
>>Ask the Judge if its a liberating or humbling experience for an
>>authority figure like His Honor to scream until his gums bleed for
>>just a drop of water have people smile politely and walk by.
>>
>>Screw the legal process. President Bush should send a phalanx of US
>>Marshals to the hospital with and a couple of army nurses to take
>>care of this gal.
>>
>>Talk about a rotten son-in-law.
>> <...>
>>
>>
>>Marta
>>--
>>___________________________________
>>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>>
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk

-- Marta Russell Los Angeles, CA http://www.martarussell.com/



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list