i always think about terry,why she was kept so long when this was sure that she was brain dead and was not sure to recover and in few days she was given a death by us,we were quite means we were also invovled in her death, this means she faced injustice in this v cultured society,no ngo came in front of and in her favor,why?
2007-09-06 05:04:26 · 5 answers · asked by shashi s 3 in Social Science ➔ Psychology
Terry Schiavo was brain dead. Her body was artificially being kept alive. Because her body was kept alive, she sometimes showed reflex reactions, like eye opening or facial gestures--but there was not "person" exactly in her body (no mind, no intelligence) making these reactions. Her brain waves were flat.
Her husband wanted to take her off artificial life support, her parents did not and they battled over this for years and years while this woman was basically kept alive as a living corpse. Finally, she was taken off life support and died. The media got involved because the US is overrun by a very loud minority of fundamentalists "Christians" which include the "president" of the country.
It was a big media show that diverted attention from other serious matters of state--like the mideast war.
2007-09-06 05:17:46 · answer #1 · answered by philosophyangel 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
It was not " we" and science had their reason to keep her alive while she was brain dead. Insurance coverage could have had something to do with the decision along with the doctor and family, giving someone every opportunity to respond to life again is always a good thing but there are many who do not get that opportunity through life saving efforts. many must depend on the choices of the insurance and the attending doctors. In her favor? How many where there for her needs before her injury? Those moments are difficult to see for some, but there are others who neglect the needs of each other without realizing the last chance moment. I do hope this can help you to understand some of the why, we do the things we do and why not do the things we should.
2007-09-06 12:23:12 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Terry was kept alive because her parents kept fighting her husband. Her husband has said for almost the whole time that she was brain dead but because she didn't have a living will. stating what she wanted to do in those circumstances. Her Parents wanted to believe that she would come back to them, Her husband wanted to take her off the life support system Her husband always said that she wouldn't have wanted to live that way. Since she hadn't left a living will Her parents were able to get her taken off of the respirator and since she lived they thought that that meant that she had a chance to come out of it. Her husband and her parents fought for about 20 years before a judge agreed that the husband had the right to fallow what he felt that she would have wanted and that was when they removed the feeding tube. it was only when they did a autopsy that they really confirmed that she was brain dead.
2007-09-06 13:45:44 · answer #3 · answered by Kathryn R 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't believe it was society's decision to keep her body alive; it was her parents' decision, and, ultimately, her husband's to discontinue artificial life support for her. I can understand the parents' reluctance to discontinue the artificial life support...hope is something that cannot be explained, but most of us know what it is, if we embrace our humanity.
I also have to say I support the husband's decision to ultimately discontinue his brain-dead wife's artifical life support. Not only does he have the right to get through this traumatic time, he deserves to have a life NOT "in limbo"...waiting endlessly for even the slightest sign that his wife was still "in there".
Plus, I have to say that dealing with comatose people is a heartbreaking reality that family/caregivers deal with every day. I have to question the validity of keeping a person I love "alive" that way...I have no way of knowing the extent of the pain they are in...they have no way of comunicating what's going on inside them. Who can say that she wasn't in pain every moment and hungered for that excrutiation to end?
2007-09-06 12:18:46 · answer #4 · answered by bitadkins 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the family and the husband were fighting over her wishes. The husband said she didn't want to live on life support while the family said she did. They battled in court for a long time because she didn't have a will that stated her wishes. It's so sad.
2007-09-06 12:13:43 · answer #5 · answered by binreddy 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋