Flatlander
Grandmaster
I don't find the starving to death thing to be very humane either. Why have they chosen to go that route?
Terry Shiavo and the Sanctity of Life...
- Thread starter Makalakumu
- Start date
Cruentus
Grandmaster
Flatlander said:
I guess that when they pulled all other support mechanisms, she was able to live just so long she was getting food, hydration, and oxygen, as every human needs. She could breath normally with out a breathing tube. There was some brain activity as well, even though she was in a comotose state.
So, that left 2 options. Letting her die through natural means, or pulling the feeding tube that hydrates and feeds her, and letting her starve to death. They're saying pull the feeding tube and let her starve.
Now...my question is, how is that justifiable?
P
PeachMonkey
Guest
It's justifiable because the husband, as the legal guardian, claims that the wife told him she would not wish to maintained in a permanent state of semi-"life" via feeding tube when twenty-two-odd doctors have already declared her cognitatively inert.Tulisan said:
The concept of it being "inhumane" to starve Terri Schiavo to death by removing her feeding tube is worthy of applause, except she is already a cadaver with a nerve-reflex smile; she will not feel the pain of starvation because everything that made her Terri Schiavo died fifteen years ago.
Cruentus
Grandmaster
PeachMonkey said:
O.K...I can see that, if it is true.
Does anyone disagree, or have evidence to the contrary?
So how would it differ with pulling the plug on the ventilator? Injecting the body with sufficient chemicals? Not providing resuscitation efforts after a cardiac arrest (DNR)? These things can and do happen in hospitals and other places (where allowed by some states). Are these actions justifiable?Tulisan said:
Bottom line is those who have medical guardianship make the final decision.
It is not an easy thing. Death often invokes emotion, especially when it is in a slow process. We generally handle it better if death is swift rather than slow and lingering. Slow and lingering often equate in the minds of many people to be "painful". Terri probably will not feel pain (or at least does not have the mental capacity to process it as "pain" in an emotional sense.)
Would she ever be able to recover? Very unlikely, as her brain is mostly liquified. What is left are her basic reflexes. What purpose is there to keep her alive if she would never, ever be remotely back to how she was? As PeachMonkey noted, she is essentially a living cadaver. Is it justifiable to keep her living on?Tulisan said:
- Ceicei
Cruentus
Grandmaster
Ceicei said:
Pulling a feeding tube, to me, is different then pulling other methods of life support.
You can remove all other forms of life support; like a non-comotose person, if they can't breath or pump blood or fight off disease through non-artifical means, then it is the natural course of action that the person finally dies when this support is removed.
However, none of you who are as healthy as can be will survive without food and hydration. If you deprive a healthy person of this, they will die regardless. So by starving someone to death, you are effectively killing them rather then letting them die as a natural course of action. And that is the difference. Not to mention that if the person can feel it, this is an agonizing way to go. Cutting the comotose persons head off would probably be more humane then starving them to death, if they do feel the pain and agony somewhere inside them.
But, is the brain truly liquified? Is she truly an empty cadaver waiting to finally be put to rest? Is she truely unable to feel the pain of starvation because her liquified brain just cannot recieve the pain message anymore? I assume the answer to this is yes, or the courts wouldn't have voted in favor of the husband. So, I could buy it in this case.
But, how can we be sure for the next one? This is why I think it is important that public policy protects the people from potential danger. Do we trust that the next doctor for the next person isn't going to convieniently misdiagnose the comotose patient, leading to a pulled plug and an agonizing death? What will the answer be then..."Awe shucks...her brain isn't liquid...silly me! Time to talk to my attorney? Good thing the good ol' gov-ment's been cracking down on them malpractice lawsuits...?"
I think these are reasonable concerns.
Reasonable and viable concerns. That is why the government and congress should have stayed out of this particular case because the issues were already decided legally and medically.Tulisan said:
Now as for other people, I really think theirs should be as case-by-case situations, best determined by the doctors, hospitals, and guardians.
Malpractice suits have their places, even with caps controlling the possible settlements that could be received. There has to be sufficient evidence to show the safeguards that usually are present medically were absent.
- Ceicei
Brother John
Senior Master
WOW...I think you are misrepresenting the report. I head this one on the news today, I heard an interview with that nurse... there was ONE syringe, in the trash...and a vile (is that the correct term??) of insulin. (Commonly used when one is keeping a body alive by machines) She couldn't account for where the vile had come from and found that Terry's blood sugars were "OFF". She said that she thinks that the husband was trying to kill her.Kane said:
That's all. No "syringes of DEATH" all over her body. One, in the trash. The 'media' hasn't done SQUAT to 'hide' this nurses identity. I heard her in her own voice today.
As to the hospital staff saying that they heard him say "when is this B$#%h going to die?" ...doubt it. Can you imagine?? You've gone through the education and training to be a nurse, a hospice nurse. This is a place where the workers hold onto hope with both hands and wring it for all it's worth! GOD BLESS'M!!!! You've dedicated your life to saving lives when you can. You work with and care for one lady for some time. Then this HUGE media hooplah about "HE WANTS TO KILL HER!!!!" crap comes on and doesn't go away. It's in your face. You recall all the times you dealt with and cared for her. The anger at this husband grows in you. I'd bet a good deal that this "memory" of him saying that isn't true.
Don't believe the hype man! Did you know that her husband won a hefty sum in court from suing the drug company that made the drug that caused her heart attack?? Over $750,000 from what I heard. Do you know how much his tax forms show that he's spent on caring for his DEAD wife's body to be cared for and prolonged??
Over $900,000.
Yeah...sounds like he doesn't care.
Your Brother
John
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
1. I'll tell you what's obscene about this. It's the violation of privacy; the publicization of what should be intensely private. And why? because a group of fanatics, and right-wing politicians, have latched on to a husband and wife's misery.
2. We HAVE a set of legal procedures and precedents for this. a) the tradition is that the spouse decides, barring some over-riding evidence that they shouldn't; b) the doctors review the case and make the best call they can; c) the courts review things if there are problems. All this got done. Over, and over, and over, calling in MORE doctors and MORE courts. For FIFTEEN years. The parents, who aren't historically or legally empowered to interfere, have pushed on and on and on, because they've been, "helped," by Bible-thumpers and radical politicians.
3. What some of you folks don't seem to understand is that if we'd followed the traditional course of things, this would've been over many years ago. Instead, we've pumped technology into keeping this--body--breathing for 15 years. The Bible-thumpers and the right-wing politicans have meddled and meddled, without any legal or moral justification.
Again--this sort of nonsense started to be pushed under Reagan, around 1982. Those of us on this forum who've actually worked with these patients know perfectly well that it IS nonsense, too--unlike the theoreticians, who want everything kept, 'alive,' but who damn sure haven't been there, and won't be there, to do the dirty work.
It's a radical change from custom, and from past law--a change being passed off as a "defense," of traditional values, which is nonsense.
"Sanctity of life," my left foot. The people pushing this are exactly the ones trying to cut programs for health care, for Social Security, for Head Start, for women's clinics, for all the things that would help cut such tragedies.
2. We HAVE a set of legal procedures and precedents for this. a) the tradition is that the spouse decides, barring some over-riding evidence that they shouldn't; b) the doctors review the case and make the best call they can; c) the courts review things if there are problems. All this got done. Over, and over, and over, calling in MORE doctors and MORE courts. For FIFTEEN years. The parents, who aren't historically or legally empowered to interfere, have pushed on and on and on, because they've been, "helped," by Bible-thumpers and radical politicians.
3. What some of you folks don't seem to understand is that if we'd followed the traditional course of things, this would've been over many years ago. Instead, we've pumped technology into keeping this--body--breathing for 15 years. The Bible-thumpers and the right-wing politicans have meddled and meddled, without any legal or moral justification.
Again--this sort of nonsense started to be pushed under Reagan, around 1982. Those of us on this forum who've actually worked with these patients know perfectly well that it IS nonsense, too--unlike the theoreticians, who want everything kept, 'alive,' but who damn sure haven't been there, and won't be there, to do the dirty work.
It's a radical change from custom, and from past law--a change being passed off as a "defense," of traditional values, which is nonsense.
"Sanctity of life," my left foot. The people pushing this are exactly the ones trying to cut programs for health care, for Social Security, for Head Start, for women's clinics, for all the things that would help cut such tragedies.
Brother John
Senior Master
BTW: That nurses name is known.Brother John said:
AND, by law if she believed that Terry's husband had done ANY of the following:
1. Administered a drug in hospital without doctors authorization.
2. Administered a drug and not been a hospital emplyee with authorization to administer.
3. Administered a drug with the intent to HARM a patient in the care of that hospital.
IF..........................IF she really believed that any one of these things were true, then she was bound by a legal and moral obligation to file a report, a very serious report, with that hospital...and in the case of #3... to contact the police to make a report.
THERE IS NO SUCH REPORT anywhere in the records of the hospital and no report that year by that nurse or regarding Terry or her husband... at all.
hmmm, strange....
Your Brother
John
Brother John
Senior Master
Yes, reasonable concerns!Tulisan said:
The answer to those questions is, and has been during the course of several different doctors and 21 different court hearings, YES.
Therefore, removing the tube IS humane. There's no-one there anymore. I don't see it being very different than removal of a ventilator.
Your Brother
John
Sorry, I misquoted it. One syringe, but various liquids were found in many places of her body including the arms, legs, and genitals. The point is that it seems that this man wants and wanted her dead for a long time before. The nurse's story is very much believable IMO.Brother John said:
---------
No matter what the case is, SHE IS NOT DEAD. She is not braindead, she is brain damaged. I have seen people in wheelchairs that can't even respond at all, should we kill them too? Mentally Handicapped people are mentally damaged, should we know kill everyone with Down Syndrome or any other mental disease? Should we kill those in a comma for over 20 years just because "they have no chance"? HELL NO!!! She is active enough for her to live, and as the medical field advances we might be able to save her one day. I cannot believe some people here want to kill a defenseless woman in the bed that cannot defend her. She has done nothing wrong. Yet these same people who want Terry to die, are against the death penalty of people who have killed dozens of people
. Kill and innocent defenseless woman lying on a bed, but don't kill a cold-blooded killer . What is this world turning into? I can't believe some of you call yourselves liberals. A true liberal would support the life of Terry Shiavo.What is the most horrific thing about this all is that Terry Shiavo is being starved to death. This isn't even lethal injection her, which I am oppose to, she is being starved. It is horrible she has to suffer like this. Until a conclusion is reached they need to give her food and water. Heck the doctors have even concluded that she can swallow food now, they should give her some food at least in her mouth. I don't know how anybody in that hospital can just walk around and work in that building while a defenseless woman is starving to death.
Cruentus
Grandmaster
That is my concern...that there is a procedure in place to protect human life.
I would assume that when deciding to pull a feeding tube, the doctors would have to assess that the patient is truly an empty cadaver that is basically brain dead, and that the patient will not suffer if the feeding tube is pulled.
If my assumption is correct, then I can say officially that I am O.K. with a decision to pull a feeding tube. If my assumption is off, then I believe we have a problem...
Paul
There are "checks and balances" within the medical field. Yes, doctors have to assess, and have other medical professionals verify, the viability of the patients and what other options/treatments/research are available. Once the doctors make their findings, the legal guardian(s) then has/have to make a decision on what to do.Tulisan said:
- Ceicei
Cruentus
Grandmaster
Kane...not sure where your getting your info, but the accounts that I had heard was that the brain had basically liquified, and that all that was left was stem and reflexes, making her unable to function beyond basic life support, and unable to feel pain.
So, basically, she was a cadaver with minimal body function.
Cruentus
Grandmaster
Ceicei said:
Sure...and as long as those checks and balances involve assuring that the patient has no brain function beyond life support before pulling a feeding tube, then I am O.K. with it.
Paul,
I found an article related to your concerns regarding starvation. Check it out and let me know what you think.
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=7977483
- Ceicei
I found an article related to your concerns regarding starvation. Check it out and let me know what you think.
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=7977483
- Ceicei
Cruentus
Grandmaster
Ceicei said:
Cool...that's the info I was looking for.
For the record, I jumped on this thread to learn more about the issue, not just throw uninformed opinions around.
From reading this thread and reading outside sources linked and not linked here, I definatily have a more informed opinion.
It would seem that pulling a feeding tube is not as bad as it sounds. So, as long as the proper checks and balances are in place, and that the patient has no chance of regaining consiousness or brain function, then I could see how this could be the human way to go.
Side note: I totally agree that pulling life support is a decision between families and their doctors, and that politicians shouldn't meddle with it. However, that doesn't mean that checks and balances don't need to be in place. In a similar sense, I am not going to say, "Yea, he was beating his wife, but that is between them and the cops shouldn't get involved." So, I agree that it is a family decision to pull the plug, but there still needs to be the checks in balances to ensure that pulling the plug is not murder. It would appear that we do have those.
Paul
Brother John
Senior Master
First off I'd like to say these things that you and I have in common here:Kane said:Sorry, I misquoted it. One syringe, but various liquids were found in many places of her body including the arms, legs, and genitals. The point is that it seems that this man wants and wanted her dead for a long time before. The nurse's story is very much believable IMO.
---------
No matter what the case is, SHE IS NOT DEAD. She is not braindead, she is brain damaged. I have seen people in wheelchairs that can't even respond at all, should we kill them too? Mentally Handicapped people are mentally damaged, should we know kill everyone with Down Syndrome or any other mental disease? Should we kill those in a comma for over 20 years just because "they have no chance"? HELL NO!!! She is active enough for her to live, and as the medical field advances we might be able to save her one day. I cannot believe some people here want to kill a defenseless woman in the bed that cannot defend her. She has done nothing wrong. Yet these same people who want Terry to die, are against the death penalty of people who have killed dozens of people
What is the most horrific thing about this all is that Terry Shiavo is being starved to death. This isn't even lethal injection her, which I am oppose to, she is being starved. It is horrible she has to suffer like this. Until a conclusion is reached they need to give her food and water. Heck the doctors have even concluded that she can swallow food now, they should give her some food at least in her mouth. I don't know how anybody in that hospital can just walk around and work in that building while a defenseless woman is starving to death.
(In these debates it's all too easy to harp on our differences)
I too respect and uphold the NEED to protect the sanctity of Life. I respect the reason behind your stance on this!
I, like my brother Tulisan, was very concerned that they should check, double check and tripple check all available avenues to support her chances for life.
Having said these things I'll say this:
I believe that Terry is, for all intents and purposes, Not 'alive'. Her very Brain isn't there anymore. ((Liquified)) The neural synapses that are given us that make us aware of life, that help us process our sensory input... aren't there anymore. She is not self aware, she is not aware of her environment, she doesn't know pain, pleasure, hope or fear. NOR will she ever have these things again. She has no capacity for "will" nor the means to express or ennact it, and again... she never will again. She does not 'recall' the past, nor can she consider her present or project/'think' about her future...ever again. Her existance is vegatative. MANY MANY doctors, the very people who should and do know the Most about this subject, agree that there is ZERO chance of her ever getting any better at all. She isn't technically 'brain-dead'...but that's nomenclature thats stating that her autonomous nervous system is intact. But that's all that is. The brain stem is still firing, and that's it.
22 different judges have looked into this. You'd have to think that ALL 22 are sadistic killers to believe that they'd not give a 'living' person a chance at life.
NOW: to the points where you and I differ quite drastically:
That's a silly proposition. Their brains are still there. They can sense and interpret those senses, they are self aware, they have brain activity from the optic nerves all the way to the frontal lobe and top to bottom. You are comparing apples and oranges here.
Oh come on man! NO... again, you are comparing bowling balls to apples now. Not even the same ball park.
Active? What overt behaviors do you see? NONE that can't be said to be the automatic reactions of the brain-stem. Those supposed words that the mother and a couple of nurses say they've heard? They've never been logged in any of Terry's medical records. They've never been witnessed by the doctors that worked with her every day for YEARS. Those doctors, the ones that've 'seen' (through modern medical technology, which is increadible) what remains inside Terry's skull have described it as "Liquified". I'm sorry, I'm a sci-fi buff too, but medical science will NEVER be able to reconstruct a "Liquified" brain and return a body to a sentient life. Never. EVEN if you took the farther reaches of faith in the progress and reach of modern medical science... I'd think that the Sun would super-nova before we discovered how to reconstruct the human brain to anything even resembling the original one.
I understand your sentiment, but really.... out of respect for the woman she was, out of respect for the life she DID have... it's time to let her shell go! I don't believe in killing either, but death is one of the most natural aspects of life. She's dead, letting her outter organism pass isn't murder. The nature of death is an end (and depending on your religious/spiritual beliefs...a beginning), the nature of LIFE is to move on. Regardless of wether we keep her cadaver functioning or not... Terry will never again "move on" in this world. The natural response of life toward death is to LET IT GO. This is difficult, but it's full of meaning too.
RIGHT!!! Then why punish her by not abiding by her own wishes? She told her devoted husband (whom many, including you now) have tried to Demonize just for wanting to follow his wife's expressed wishes And to move on with his life. She also told her best friend (of many years) who loved her and now states emphatically that "Terry didn't want to go on like this, she told me so."
NOT even remotely a related subject. Apples to Tire-irons. One is a humane way to let a body expire... the other is a punishment for inhumane rapists/killers. Not related.Yet these same people who want Terry to die, are against the death penalty of people who have killed dozens of people
Then were's her official report??
She would be under a moral and legal obligation to fully and immediately report such a find, or even a suspicion.
And....there wasn't any report even hinting at these things.
OF course it's believable in your opinion... it's supports your original opinion in the first place.
ah..come on. So would a 'true' conservative, IF LIFE IS WHAT SHE HAS, but she doesn't. I am a conservative, republican christian. Just ask some right here on this forum who've put up with me asserting my thoughts on different political and religious subjects. Terry has moved on, her physical shell hasn't. It's like a stage-coach... the coach is Empty, but the horses are still plodding along. It's time to stop the coach and unhitch the team of horses, out of Respect for the one time passenger. ((GEE.... can you tell I grew up in rural Kansas??))
I hope you understand, I respect the sentiments behind your feelings on this. I really do. They were MY original thoughts/feelings as well.
But then I got more information.
Your Brother
John
G
ghostdog2
Guest
You guys just don't go far enough. Why stop with Terry? Let's finish off everybody and anybody who has a life we wouldn't want. Come on, let's get logical. If Terry's "husband" can make this decision for her, let's get started on everybody/anybody with diminished capacity who bothers "us" like Terry seems to bother him.. Hell, I've seen handicapped visitors at Disney World who were in worse shape than she is, let's get them next. They slow up the ride lines and take the good parking spaces. Oh yeah, and Downs Syndrome, let's eliminate that by eliminating the DS children. Where to next? OK, how about Alzheimers patients? They've got no quality of life I'd want. They could be next.
I could make quite a list, but I'll leave it up to you.
But seriously folks, don't pretend you've given this thought and concern. That woman hurts no one. Her family desperately wants her to live. Why are some on this forum so eager to kill her? Her death enriches no one and yet impoverishes a family that wants to keep her presence here. Why do you bums care? Why so eager to hurt her family and take their child/sister/brother?
Please don't talk about the "husband". He has long since gone on with his ife and so clearly doesn't give a damn. Not for on minute do I believe he cares about what is best for Terry. He has another family and another life, yet wants to take Terry away from her family:a woman he is no longer involved with or connected to...alive or dead.
The talk about politics is sickening. Cynicism, hypocrisy and agenda promotion dominate every shallow posting. Last week, as this story heated up, a rapist killed four people as he made his escape. A child sex offender with 24 prior arrests kidnapped and murdered a nine year old child. Believe me, a cottage industry sprang into action to keep these scum balls alive and millions in time, money and resources will be wasted to protect these precious lives. And Terry Schiavo? No time for her.
Liberal society is all for death. Unless, of course, you've done something to deserve it. Then every life is sacred.
Tough luck Terry.
Next?
I could make quite a list, but I'll leave it up to you.
But seriously folks, don't pretend you've given this thought and concern. That woman hurts no one. Her family desperately wants her to live. Why are some on this forum so eager to kill her? Her death enriches no one and yet impoverishes a family that wants to keep her presence here. Why do you bums care? Why so eager to hurt her family and take their child/sister/brother?
Please don't talk about the "husband". He has long since gone on with his ife and so clearly doesn't give a damn. Not for on minute do I believe he cares about what is best for Terry. He has another family and another life, yet wants to take Terry away from her family:a woman he is no longer involved with or connected to...alive or dead.
The talk about politics is sickening. Cynicism, hypocrisy and agenda promotion dominate every shallow posting. Last week, as this story heated up, a rapist killed four people as he made his escape. A child sex offender with 24 prior arrests kidnapped and murdered a nine year old child. Believe me, a cottage industry sprang into action to keep these scum balls alive and millions in time, money and resources will be wasted to protect these precious lives. And Terry Schiavo? No time for her.
Liberal society is all for death. Unless, of course, you've done something to deserve it. Then every life is sacred.
Tough luck Terry.
Next?
