quote:Next of kin status does not give anyone the right to decide to starve someone to death.
A bit biased way to state this. Tube feeding is artificial life support just as respirator is artificial life support. Deciding to turn of the respirator for a comatose patient, isn't equivalent to deciding to sufficate them -- although that is the outcome.
Terri Shiavo can't eat. She is alive solely because of medical technology that is able to deliver nutrition. Choosing to stop that medical care should not be compared to those who choose to starve a child or disabled person any more than turning off a respirator should be compared to putting a pillow over someones face until they sufficate.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If she had made it clear that she would want to starve to death then would that fix all this?
I don't know, but I have a feeling there would still be an outcry against it. Doctor assisted suicide is against the law, pulling the plug isn't. But somewhere in the middle is where Terri Shaivo is. Letting her starve to death is immoral, but ending her suffering faster is also immoral. Yet prolonging her suffering by keeping the feeding tube in is not immoral.
posted
IMO, turning off a respirator is EXACTLY the same as suffocating them with a pillow. (However, not putting them on the respirator in the first place would be different.)
As far as whether Terri would be able to eat without the tube, I believe there is evidence before that she might be able to learn how (there is evidence of swallowing, etc.) but her husband has refused to allow it.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
I don't think it really makes a difference if you pull the plug on a respirator after it has been activated, versus never putting them on it to begin with, in which case they will suffocate anyway. Does the moral line really differentiate between suffocating now or later?
Between starving now or later?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:A bit biased way to state this. Tube feeding is artificial life support just as respirator is artificial life support. Deciding to turn of the respirator for a comatose patient, isn't equivalent to deciding to sufficate them -- although that is the outcome.
Terri Shiavo can't eat. She is alive solely because of medical technology that is able to deliver nutrition. Choosing to stop that medical care should not be compared to those who choose to starve a child or disabled person any more than turning off a respirator should be compared to putting a pillow over someones face until they sufficate.
The original order prevented any attempts to feed her by hand.
There is a means to deliver food to her. They are going to prevent that means from being used. The result of this is that she will starve to death. Seems pretty accurate to me.
quote:Yet prolonging her suffering by keeping the feeding tube in is not immoral.
All we keep hearing is that she isn't aware, can't feel pain, and that starvation and dehydration will be peaceful because of her lack of awareness. How, then, is her suffering being prolonged?
quote: All we keep hearing is that she isn't aware, can't feel pain, and that starvation and dehydration will be peaceful because of her lack of awareness. How, then, is her suffering being prolonged?
If that is the case, why bother to keep her "alive" at all? The whole thing has me confused when it comes to her actual state. If she isn't aware then it doesn't really make a difference one way or the other, just get it over with. If she is aware, then her wishes apparently were to end artificial support, get it over with.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I tried to avoid this story... partly because it's the business of the family and I don't know all the facts.
But now that I've been practically forced to find out more about this unfortunate situation I'm getting more and more mad at the Republicans/Bush/Religious Right. There are thousands of similar deaths every day and the CONGRESS is getting involved in this ONE case?? And what about that Republican memo they found talking about the political benefits of making a huge deal of this. Ugh. Horrible.
Bush making the oh so convenient trip back to the capital to sign the bill. The BBC was talking about the possible success of saving her…but of course the goal is not to save her. They don’t care about her. It’s all about making a good show for the religious right base and damaging the Democrats.
The fact that Congress got involved at all changes the way power is used and how the government can use it against the general public.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't understand. When I read about this case in Le Monde yesterday, they said that Terri was in a permanent vegetative coma. Is it true or not ? I always figured that a person in that condition would be lying on a bed, not able to initiate a move or to watch or hear something, but this description doesn't fit what I hear from you today. If she is in the state I described, then I guess I would be in favour of letting her die. If it's not the case, I don't know. But it must be heart-wrenching for her husband. If I was to live such a horrible thing... Well, I'm not even sure I would survive without Vinnie, what would I do if his body was alive but his soul no more ? I would become mad.
[ March 22, 2005, 05:58 AM: Message edited by: Anna ]
Posts: 3526 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
From what I've heard, she has no upper brain activity. All areas that regulate consciousness such as pain, emotion, and I believe all of the cortex is destroyed beyond repair.
If her soul is still attached to her body, it no longer has any feeling at all. If she has passed on, her body is still continuing its bodily functions thinking that its still alive. This is a very touchy subject as there are arguments on both sides.
Because of her body's reactions some would believe that she was still there. Yet as far as science goes, only the basic brain funtions are exhibited, meaning that thinking is essentially moot.
This entire situation is representative of our society and our values. We protect those who can't protect themselves, and yet those who have their own ideas we ignore. It used to be that we took care of our family and that people looked out for those they knew. Now we lock elderly people in nursing homes and ignore our own children.
Personally I would never want to be stuck in limbo as T.S. is.
Posts: 119 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Who is paying for all her medical bills? After 15 years it must be up to a million. How can anyone afford this? I think I read somewhere that the husband won some medical lawsuit years ago and that's what has been funding her care.
I would never want to remain alive like this...and I would hope my family would never bankrupt themselves over my corpse. But that's not the point... the point is that our mighty government is using her and her family for their own ends to keep power.
I say if the husband does not want to care for her anymore, then let her parents foot the bill. Case solved.
If only Bush and the Repulicans would put this much effort to something real... like getting health care to all the millions who have none.
[ March 22, 2005, 07:19 AM: Message edited by: Telperion the Silver ]
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and Rabbit, if you're going to talk about biased terminology, then "eliminating a husband's status as next of kin" is right up there.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Except according to Catholic law, he can't move on with his life, so to speak. Catholics don't do divorce. Hence (IMO) his stance of removing her feeding tube and letting her body pass on.
According to Catholic teachings, removing the feeding tube is wrong. According to Catholic teachings, his adultery is wrong.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's why I can't understand people who rely entirely on the teaching of a church. In her heart and soul his wife is dead, and his living with someone else is like a widow marrying again. I can't be against it, and I can't see why people think like "but you haven't had the church benediction so it is so so wrong and God will punish you, nyah nyah nyah."
[ March 22, 2005, 09:14 AM: Message edited by: Anna ]
Posts: 3526 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:but you haven't had the church benediction so it is so so wrong and God will punish you, nyah nyah nyah
you can't see why people think like this because very few people actually do. It's easy to be shocked at how people think a certain way when you make up how they think.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, I didn't mean you or anyone here. But in France, there are actually a certain number of people who think that way. Like, since I am not baptized, I go directly burning in hell no matter how I behave. I'm not making that up, I promise. It may be a minority, but it's still more than annoying.
[ March 22, 2005, 09:32 AM: Message edited by: Anna ]
Posts: 3526 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Personally I would never want to be stuck in limbo as T.S. is.
Johivin --- do you have that written down somewhere legally so that if you ever got in this condition (car accident, etc.) you family would actually KNOW your wishes???
Do any of you who are arguing in favor of pulling the plug on T.S. have this written down for you? I mean - none of this argument for/against Schiavo would even be an issue if she had actually left some kind of directive...
just seems hypocritical to me that some of you say you would hate to live that way, you haven't made allowances for it in your own lives..
posted
Did anyone ever answer the question as to who is paying for her care? What if this happened to me? Would my family have to fit the bill once insurance ran out?
My opinion is that she should be fed and cared for as long as she is alive. The brain is an amazing and poorly understood organ. I strongly suspect that when an "expert" says "She's in a persistent vegetative state from which she will never recover" what I think they mean is "We've never ever seen anyone recover from this and due to the damage in her brain, we'd be floored if she was ever to show signs of higher brain functions again, in fact we'd be willing to bet money this will never happen." Granted, I'm no expert, but if it were left up to me to make the decision I'd say keep her fed. If she's truely beyond feeling or knowing, then why not err on the side of caution?
That said, I think the husband should be able to walk away. I think he should be able to go on with his life as if widowed, and should not be held responsible for T.S.'s further care. She should become a ward of the state.
If this happened to me, I'd want every possible chance to live. Nevertheless, I'd expect Chris to hold on to hope for a short time at least, then move on.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting that the Bush administration falls on the side of keeping her alive, given that they'd also like to cut the funding that makes this possible, both in terms of Medicare/Medicaid and in terms of capping benefits in suits of the sort that provided Schaivo's husband with cash to provide for her care.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:According to Catholic teachings, removing the feeding tube is wrong.
I don't think this is correct. My Catholic MIL recently died. During the course of her death, her Priest confirmed that refusal of life extending medical care is not condemned by the Catholic church. Under catholic teaching, the refusal of medical care is not equivolent to either suicide or murder. For over a year before her death, MIL was on a feeding tube. Two weeks before her death, when it became clear that her death was imminent and that the feeding tube was simply prolonging her suffering, she opted to stop the tube feedings. This was not condemned by the Catholic church. She was able to make the decision her self, but from my limited understanding it still would have been fine with the Catholic church if she had been mentally incompetent and the decision had been made by the family.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm. The last time I took a class in it, we were taught that medical care could be refused, but that provision of food and water did not qualify as medical care. I'll have to do some reading.
The key factor is whether or not the feeding tube is medical care - Catholics can refuse medical care in a wide variety of situations. I know the pope has recently espoused the view that feeding tubes are a natural means of preserving life, not a medical act, although this wasn't an official pronouncement.
Did they attempt to feed her once the tube was removed? That may have some bearing on it.
quote:Did they attempt to feed her once the tube was removed?
Its not really a relevant question since she was at home so there is no "they" who might have attempted to feed her. She was able to make such choices for herself. The instructions we received from Hospice were that if she requested anything to eat or drink, we should give it to her but that we should not try to persuade her to eat or drink. During the last 2.5 weeks she drank about 1 L of ginger ale and ate one egg roll and one small bowl of raspberries and cream. Those details are however irrelevant to the question.
MIL was the head dietician incharge of enteral nutrition at a local hospital for many years. She was involved with removing feeding tubes from terminal patients frequently. Although food and water administered by normal means are not considered "medical care", enteral feeding (tube feeding) is defined as medical care. I have been through this situation with two family member now. I have looked into many of the details. Tube feeding and IVs are commonly removed from terminally ill patients when the patient or the patients family have requested that no heroic means be used to extended the patients life. This is not a gray area, it is routine in every hospital. To the best of my knowledge, all major religions consider tube feeding (under most circumstances) to be life prolonging medical care and do not consider it a sin for terminally ill patients to refuse such care.
There are two aspects that make the Shiavo case controversial. First, she is not terminally ill. As I understand it, her body could continue to function for many years. This in and of itself, would not have generated ther controversy seeing that law has allowed patients and their families to stop respirators, tube feeding and other medical treatment in similar cases. The second aspect is the one that has this case in the news. Terri's family is not in agreement that care should be ended. If Terri's parents had agreed with her husband that it was time to stop the tube feeding and allow her to die, this would have never made the news. It would have been just one among hundreds of cases. Because her parents object to stopping the tube feeding and won the ear of prominent politicians -- it is suddenly a controversy.
That's not quite fair. What I should say is that the controversy is now in the headlines because her parents have so vociferously opposed allowing her to die. The controversy behind this case has real merit. It is the question of who should be given the right to make life and death decisions for an incapacitated individual. The decision that we provide full care to all individuals unless they have a written living will that specifically requests otherwise, is to general to be useful. I could give you specific examples where an overwhelming majority of people would disagree with such a blanket law. What's more, this decision would require dramatic changes in our entire medical system since we as a society do not provide unqualified access to medical care to anyone now.
[ March 22, 2005, 02:18 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
I can remember when there were only three television networks: ABC, CBS, and NBC and their local affiliates. Reception was so bad in our area that we had a tough time pulling in the NBC signal at night. This meant that I never saw an episode of Bonanza or Star Trek until I went off to college. But during the day, the NBC signal (channel 11 in Pittsburgh) came in as clearly as the other two. Since most daytime television was filled with women’s stories, there wasn’t much to watch. A few times I came across the sappy “Queen for a Day” when I was home from school because of some faked illness. The image of a teary-eyed woman being crowned “Queen for a Day” will never leave me.
Four women were chosen each day from the studio audience. They appeared on stage one at a time where each woman told about the great tragedies and misfortunes in her life. At the end of each program, studio audience applause that was displayed on the “Applause-O-Meter” determined who was the biggest loser and would be declared “Queen for a Day.” To add a little regal style to the celebration, each day’s queen was given a jeweled crown, a bouquet of roses, and gifts fit for a queen. To top off the event, she was draped in a sable-trimmed red velvet robe. There were only two things lacking: She had no regal authority, and she went back to her mundane and messed up life the next day.
The Terri Schiavo case got me thinking. What if I could be King Solomon for a day and have what the television queens did not have—full kingly authority, a “let it be written, let it be done” authority. How would I rule?
The first issue relates to guardianship. Who is Terri’s guardian? Her husband maintains that he is. But he’s deserted her in spite of the vows he reiterated when he testified in the medical malpractice suit he filed:
“I believe in the vows I took with my wife: through sickness and health, for richer or poor. I married my wife because I love her and I want to spend the rest of my life with her. I’m going to do that.”
He is now living with another woman and has two children by her. By this action, he has given up guardianship. Civil governments no longer seem to be able to define marriage. Judges are claiming that men can marry men, and women can marry women, but a man who deserts his wife and moves in with another woman is somehow still married to the woman he deserted. Terri is in legal limbo, but she does not have to be. For example, when parents die in an accident, children are often given to the next of kin. Terri has her loving parents who want to care of her. I do not understand why a judge would not turn guardianship over to them. This seems to be the easiest and most logical decision since there is no living will. Michael Schiavo gets his freedom, Terri’s parents get their daughter, and she might have a chance for some rehabilitation.
King Solomon faced a similar dilemma as two harlots claimed to be the mother of a child (1 Kings 3:16–28). Since there was no way to check DNA, Solomon extracted the motive of true love from the women. He recommended cutting the child in two and giving each woman a half. The true mother, not wanting to see her child destroyed, gave up her parental rights to see her child live. Through this selfless act, Solomon had found the child’s true guardian. You don’t have to be as wise as Solomon to figure out who cares for Terri Schiavo. Apparently there aren’t many wise judges in this case. The parents are the true caregivers —everyone knows it—and judges want to cut this poor woman in half rather than put her in the hands of those who love her! Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
At one point, I wondered whether at least some of Kings stories in the Bible were intended as anti-monarchical in keeping with earlier parts. The Solomon story is one of the best examples of this. You can read it as making a metaphorical point and it's ok. You can read it as absurdist satire, and it works even better. But reading it as something that actually happened is just silly. Solomon's "wisdom" is predicated on the one woman being perfectly happy with getting half a baby.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's s'posed to be a metaphor for the partitioning of one of the "state"s which Solomon ruled over as a solution to resolve bickering between two competing factions.
If the situation had been literal rather than political metaphor: Solomon backed himself into an untenable position. If neither woman had given up her claim, then in order to keep his word credible, he would have had to kill the baby. Can't rule over a buncha "mafia families" -- which is essentially what political factions were -- if they feel that ya won't enforce the tough decisions.
Hopefully he woulda figured out a more modern solution, then retconned the meaning of his judgement ala "Joint custody is what I meant by splitting the baby in half."
posted
Because the “true mother” is the one that wants what’s best for the child no matter what the genetic testing would have revealed?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
That or the politically-aware false mother was brighter than the true mother in figuring out Solomon's legal strategy. And the non-politically-aware true mother just assumed that no one in their right mind -- ie assumed that society wouldn't accept a nutcase as judge&ruler -- would actually kill a baby solely to prove a point.
If the ancients were anywhere near as wise as some folks wanna believe, Solomon woulda invented genetic testing.
posted
Recently, my mother was taken off a respirator. She'd had shortness of breath and abdominal pain, which they thought might be evidence of infection in her abdominal cavity. She'd just had some emergency surger a month or so before, and had not been home from the hospital yet.
It was to the point that either they put in more permanent life support measures (trachiostomy for the ventillator, etc.) with no forseeable hope of meaning ful recovery. Nine years of anti-rejection meds had simply turned her entrails into cheesecloth.
Mom was very clear about her wishes. She had a living will, though those can be overridden by family in our state. The doctors met with us. They gave us a day or so to get everyone together. We knew what we had to do, we knew what was coming.
Though I wanted nothing more than for my mother to open her eyes and speak to me again, it fell to me to speak for the family. She lived for almost a week with little medical intervention (IV fluids and pain medication).
I knew what she wanted. I knew she was ready to go. She had been trying to prepare us for some time, because she knew it wouldn't be long.
But... I still wonder sometimes if I'd insisted that we fight a little harder, if maybe she would have lived. Should I have ignored her living will? Fought the whole family, or tried to rally them behind a questionable hope?
I don't know.
I do know that I'm very, very glad that the government kept it's nose out of what was hugely painful for everyone, and I'm very glad that we all agreed.
If everyone would make their wishes known, the government wouldn't have the chance to stick it's nose in. So do it, people. Don't make the people you love destroy each other trying to decide what's right.
Posts: 1664 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Has anyone else heard the audio clips that have been played of testimony from a lady that was Schiavo's nurse around 1996, 1997? In that testimony, she says that Terri, when she cared for her, could say small, simple words like "pa" to indicate pain (usually during menses cycle) and "mama" and she would smile and laugh briefly. She could indicate when she needed something.
That is a much different picture than we are hearing from the rest of the media, and I was very surprised to hear it.
I have often wondered why Mr. Schaivo has still been refusing TV cameras to go in and video her lately. THe only video we see is one shot by her family (parents) a few years back.
Farmgirl
(guess I'm behind the time with this. I see from the testimony here that this information has been around awhile.)
posted
I am a bit confused by the court order that she not be fed by hand. I would like to see the ruling and understand the reasoning. It is possible that this also is a medical issue. If Shiavo does not able to swallow properly, hand feeding could easily result in her choking or asperating food into her lungs. If this is the case, hand feeding her would be the equivalent of holding a pillow over her face. If this is the case, I can support the courts position. If its not, then I have a hard time seeing any justification for preventing hand feeding her.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry I haven't been involved. The days are getting very long and the phone and emails just don't seem to stop. (couldn't even eat a peanut butter sandwich without getting interrupted by the phone today.) And it started early.
I was on democracynow radio this morning. I was told that I would be debating a bioethicist, but that was only part of it. They pulled in Barney Frank - and I think the exchange between Rep. Frank and I was the most interesting part of the show. (I haven't had the heart to listen to it - early morning is when my voice is shakiest, so I know I sounded more emotional than I wanted to at points.)
You can access it at the following URL, using a variety of media formats:
posted
Which brings up a point, Olivetta. Why is there a presumption that Terry Schiavo didn't draw up a living will (before ever meeting her future husband) requesting termination in case of severe brain injury? and left it with her parents? who decided they didn't want to follow the instructions?
I believe it was ?ClaudiaTherese? who mentioned that her mother died. And her uncle, who was executor of the estate, claimed that no will could be found, and split the estate amongst his own half of the family. Cutting ?ClaudiaTherese? out of her inheritance entirely: even though she was the caregiver to her mother; even though she is fairly certain that a will was drawn; even though she thinks her mother would have left a cabin with some land to her.
Edit: Changed "Rabbit" back to "?ClaudiaTherese?" due to a correction on the next page.
quote:Which brings up a point: why is there an assumption that Terry Schiavo didn't draw up a living will requesting termination in case of severe brain injury? and left it with her parents? who decided they didn't want to follow the instructions?
There's no evidence of this. Under Florida law, the presumption favors continued life.
We also don't know if she left a living will with Michael specifically prohibiting removal of nutrition support.
posted
Aspectre, I'm just really lucky for two reasons:
1. My family is great, very loving, pull-together, salt of the earth kind of people
and
2. My mother was a talker. A communicater of extraordinary prowess. Anybody who stood in line with her at the grocery store for more than a minute knew her life story, or close. Everyone knew her wishes, in no uncertain terms.
Which made it easy when the living will she had on file with the hospital could not be found. Without the document, everyone still knew what she'd want. Plus, at this point they could not have saved her life, in all probability, even with extreme measures. AAMOF, it would have been a clear-cut no-brainer had it not been MY mother I was talking about. Posts: 1664 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sndrake, Were you on the monday or Tuesday DemocracyNow. I listened to Monday but never found you.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
True, Dagonee. All I'm saying is that the presumptions previously mentioned on this forum should not be automaticly conceded as the only possibilities.
Solomon would have been a lot wiser if he had appointed his medical advisors to examine both women and the baby, as well as assigned investigators to question witnesses such as friends/neighbors/relatives/midwives, before pronouncing a pre/judgment which could have left him in a nasty political position.
posted
I also find it a bit strange that certain "I am a religious person"s seem to presume that TerrySchiavo would prefer her present state over Heaven.
My family has a pact amongst ourselves that we will not live under such conditions. Yes, it is written down and was signed the day I turned 18. No one in my family wants to live if we cannot feed or breathe for ourselves.
Posts: 119 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:All we keep hearing is that she isn't aware, can't feel pain, and that starvation and dehydration will be peaceful because of her lack of awareness. How, then, is her suffering being prolonged?
This is the perception he has fostered in her wishes to be allowed to pass on.
Except this isn't just him. It's usually the truth. Now that I'm working in a nursing home I get to see this alot. When your body breaks down there are changes in the blood and basically you loose the ability to feel hunger/thirst. This happens with really sick cancer patients and very old folks. I have an 80 yr old dude right now starving himself to death... and he doesn't feel a thing. And the hospital won't do anything because he has a right to refuse medical treatment. Feeding being part of that.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"when the living will she had on file with the hospital could not be found"
I find myself wondering if it weren't deliberately removed by someone with a religio-political agenda.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Except this isn't just him. It's usually the truth.
Telp - did you go to the site that was linked to further up this thread http://www.terrisfight.net/ where her family has posted video and testimony that indicates she CAN and DOES respond to pain?
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
