I'm getting calls from local activists, from some media, from people just wanting "to talk" - (I cut those as short as politely possible).
I even had to answer the phone in the middle of typing this.
What I want more than anything right now is to take a nap for a day or two, waking up now and then to read my unopened copy of SOTG for awhile, and go back to sleep again.
Such is the point my fantasy life has fallen to. Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
"Medical experts are witnessing an emerging and alarming increase in a disorder known as TBI or Traumatic Brain Injury. In other words, the Iraq war could produce a generation of brain-damaged ex-soldiers."
"The emergence of this latest "signature wound" comes just one month after President Bush announced in his 2006 budget that he would eliminate a $9 million program for the treatment of people with Traumatic Brain Injury."
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:• Ms. Schiavo is not terminally ill. She has lived in her current condition for 15 years. This is not about end-of-life decision making. The question is whether she should be killed by denying her food and fluids.
...
• There is a dispute as to Ms. Schiavo's awareness and consciousness. But if we assume that those who would authorize her death are correct, she is completely unaware of her situation and therefore incapable of suffering physically or emotionally. Her death thus can't be justified as relieving her suffering.
• There is a genuine dispute as to what Ms. Schiavo believed and expressed about life with severe disability before she herself became incapacitated; certainly, she never stated her preferences in an advance directive such as a living will. If we assume that she is aware and conscious, it is possible that, like most people who have lived with a severe disability for as long as she has, she has abandoned her preconceived fears of the life she is now living. We have no idea whether she wishes to be bound by things she might have said when she was living a very different life. If we assume she is unaware and unconscious, we can't justify her death as her preference. She has no preference.
• Ms. Schiavo, like all people, incapacitated or not, has a federal constitutional right not to be deprived of her life without due process of law.
• In addition to the rights all people enjoy, Ms. Schiavo has a statutory right under the Americans With Disabilities Act not to be treated differently because of her disability. Obviously, Florida law would not allow a husband to kill a non-disabled wife by denying her nourishment. It is Ms. Schiavo's disability that makes her killing different in the eyes of the Florida courts. Because the state is overtly drawing lines based on disability, it has the burden under the ADA of justifying those lines.
...
• The whole society has a stake in making sure state courts are not tainted by prejudices, myths and unfounded fears -- like the unthinking horror in mainstream society that transforms feeding tubes into fetish objects, emblematic of broader, deeper fears of disability that sometimes slide from fear to disgust and from disgust to hatred. While we should not assume that disability prejudice tainted the Florida courts, we cannot reasonably assume that it did not.
The rest of it has some interesting takes on the congressional actions allowing federal apeal and some other issues, but nothing we haven't covered here already. This part was the clearest description of the disability aspect I've come across in national media.
posted
For those of you (aspectre and others) who disagree with those of us who want Terri to continue living, and think we are being unreasonable to want her to continue in her present state -- please realize this isn't just about Terri. Yes, I personally believe the state after death is much better than what we have in this life. So it isn't that I want her to suffer by making her "continue" like this, as some people have implied.
What we are fighting is the overall precedence this sets. I worked in a nursing home a number of years, and was very fond of the residents there. Some of them were hand-fed only or tube-fed. Many were incoherent, etc. But I can't imagine a family member coming in and just telling me to stop feeding them! To let them pass away on their own due to their deteriorating health is one thing -- for me to cause it by withdrawing their food or water would be much different.
I'm worried that if this is allowed with Terri, there are many other families who will choose to take the "just let them die of dehydration" route rather than bear the burden of care or costs. This has huge ramifications.
In Kansas yesterday, in a preventative measure brought about by the publicity around the Schiavo case, our state legislature passed measures that says guardians of those incapcitated in our state must got to court before they can gain permission to withhold food or water from the person in their care.
posted
I read the Cruzan case - thanks for posting it. I've been very familiar with the case for several years.
One thing I think that gets overlooked is that the Cruzan decision did not say that "clear and convincing" was the highest possible standard of review; rather, it upheld the "clear and convincing" standard as not being too high. Technically, this leaves room for a reasonable doubt standard.
The dissents boggled me then and boggled me now. Frankly, the only way they are at all understandable to me is that every fact was examined through the lense of the "prejudices, myths and unfounded fears" mentioned in the op-ed I just posted. Especially Stevens's: the discussion of "best interest of the patient" practically screamed it at me.
posted
To reiterate what Farmgirl is saying, I've seen many, many people commenting on this case say things very close to "of course they should pull the plug, what kind of life is that?"
That's what chills my heart about this case, much much more so than people who think her wishes have been clearly proven but still think it should rest on her wishes.
posted
In Kansas yesterday, in a preventative measure brought about by the publicity around the Schiavo case, our state legislature passed measures that says guardians of those incapcitated in our state must got to court before they can gain permission to withhold food or water from the person in their care.
From what I understand, Michael Schiavo did just that, back in 2000.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Then how do you rectify the discrepency of Dubbyas signing the 1999 Texas bill that allows the removal of 'life support' from those doctors deem unrecoverable or cannot afford to pay for the long term care of those such as Terri?
First of all, I'm not defending that bill - I think it's pretty bad. But let's talk about the actual bill.
First, it doesn't say they can remove life support from those who "cannot afford to pay." The people saying it says that are either relying on non-primary sources or are lying. I know that claim has been flashed around the blogs and press and assume you are relying on those accounts. The only criteria is if the treating physician and medical ethic committee agree that the life-sustaining treatment is "inappropriate" for the patient. Cost considerations didn't come into it.
Second, the procedure for this is the one favored by the AMA - it's not an insurer or profit-oriented policy. It's based on the preference of bioethicists.
Which in my mind demonstrates something missing from bioethics.
quote:Dubbya says we should err on the side of life, butapparently he sure didn't feel that way in '99. He had the choice to veto that bill if he didn't like it. But he didn't.
I agree this is problematic. But let's please stop recasting this bill as a "someone who can't afford to pay is ineligible for medical treatment."
quote: From what I understand, Michael Schiavo did just that, back in 2000.
Well, sndrake might have to update me on this -- because I thought he had decided to have it removed, and it only went to court when the parents fought that decision. So that basically he had to DEFEND this choice in court, but didn't have to go to court first.
But like I said, I wasn't following it way back then, so maybe Stephen knows.
posted
Nope, he submitted it to the court. There's two procedures that can be followed. Either the surrogate decision maker can make the decision and have it followed, or he can submit the decision to the court. He chose the latter.
Is NDY's membership limited to people in a specific area, and is there a requirement that members be disabled? I went to your organizational website but did not find this information. I have been seriously considering becoming involved in disabled-rights activism.
While I don't agree on your position regarding this specific incident, it has increased my awareness of the problem.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Good points were made though. I think it was from a letter to the "editor" kind of thing correcting a prior story by NPR. But they talked about what Not Dead Yet is and what their position is on the Terri Schiavo case.
posted
Wll, terri was given last rites and communion. Why would her husband deny that?(communion, not last rites) That just seems the ultimate in cruelty to me. Are his heels dug in so far, and he has to show his control even to the bitter end? Or are the parents just trying for one last ditch effort to show him up?
This whole thing is so terribly sad.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'm not one to advocate pulling the plug because of the 'what kind of life is that'. From what I've been able to glean from the information available, and admittedly from personal preferences, I know of no one that WOULD want to live like that. To carry on as a shell such as that would be abhorrent for me. It only prolongs the agony of the family. Can anyone here honestly say they would like to exist like that? I say exist because that ISN'T living. There is NO quality of life here. (emphasis mine)
If the other choice is death, then yes. Absolutely, no question.
Life is sacred. Does that mean that everyone should be put on artificial life support? No. But once on, there should never be any withdrawing of support ("pulling the plug"), and food and water -- by whatever means -- should NEVER be withheld.
The fact that we as a country do not see both those things as incredibly and absolutely abhorrent disturbs me greatly.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm probably being cynical. I do not think they should have removed her feeding tube.
But, on the "Big Picture" do you think the endless appeals and increasing venom from either side in this case actually helped raise awareness about it? Or did it hurt the cause. Having so many people say "of course she'd want to die" was not the desired result for the activists.
And do you think that the courts would judge differently if it hadn't been kicked around them for so long? At the end I don't blame the supreme court for declining to hear it. They don't want to set Supreme Court precedent on this case. I mean even moving it to the Federal level to get a "clean" slate probably didn't because everyone was already aware of the case. And you ended up with the exact opposite of the desired precedent.
It would be like trying to get a fair jury for OJ Simpson or Michael Jackson, where even though they were notorious scumbags they deserved an unbiased jury. Terri really hasn't gotten that, because there is no way to actually put this in front of a jury is there?
I understand that one shouldn't put a value on human life, because it is priceless. But, as far as the "greater good" for the rest of the people that are dealing with similar issues and getting them to a place where they'd say "yes, so and so should be kept alive", did this do more harm than letting her slip away quietly would?
I don't know. I think I'm glad there was outrage because we should be outraged. But at the same time, if it calluses us as a nation rather than softening us, was it actually worth the hoopla?
posted
I tried to stay out of this but I just came across this news article. DeLay Said Agreed Not to Extend Dad's Life
quote:LOS ANGELES - House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who has helped lead a congressional effort to keep Terri Schiavo alive, joined members of his own family nearly 17 years ago in allowing doctors not to take extraordinary measures to extend his father's life, a newspaper reported Sunday.
DeLay had just been re-elected to his third term in Congress in 1988 when his father, Charles DeLay, was severely injured in an accident. As the elder DeLay's vital organs began failing, the family chose not to connect him to a dialysis machine or take other measures to prolong his life, the Los Angeles Times reported Sunday, citing court documents, medical records and interviews with family members.
"There was no point to even really talking about it," Maxine DeLay, the congressman's 81-year-old mother, told the Times. "Tom knew, we all knew, his father wouldn't have wanted to live that way."
DeLay helped push through Congress a special law allowing Terri Schiavo's parents to ask federal courts to order their brain-damaged daughter's feeding tube reinserted after state courts allowed it to be removed. However, after hearing their pleas, federal judges refused to intervene.
The Texas Republican also accused Schiavo's husband and the courts of "an act of barbarism" against Schiavo, who doctors say is in a persistent vegetative state.
The congressman declined to be interviewed about his father's case, but a press aide said it was "entirely different than Terri Schiavo's."
"The only thing keeping her alive is the food and water we all need to survive. His father was on a ventilator and other machines to sustain him," said DeLay spokesman Dan Allen.
Charles DeLay, 65, and his brother and their wives were trying out a tram the brothers had built to carry their families up and down a slope from their Texas home to the shore of a lake when the tram jumped the tracks on Nov. 17, 1988.
Charles DeLay was pitched headfirst into a tree. Hospital admission records showed he suffered multiple injuries, including a brain hemorrhage.
Doctors advised that he would "basically be a vegetable," said the congressman's aunt, JoAnne DeLay, who suffered broken bones in the crash.
Like Schiavo, Charles DeLay had no living will, but he had reportedly expressed to others his wish not to be kept alive by artificial means.
He died on Dec. 14, 1988. He hadn't shown any signs of being conscious, except that his pulse rate would rise slightly when younger son Randall entered the room, Maxine DeLay said.
"There was no chance he was ever coming back," she said of her husband.
quote:Only one link on your site worked for me. I got either "no permission to access" or "page cannot be found". The only links that worked was the last one on the page and the first one about ADEPT. Just a heads up.
BookWyrm,
I don't know what the problem is. We haven't gotten any reports about this from anyone else and when I checked the site, all the links worked for me. Could have been a connection problem that developed and when you went back to the NDY page, you were hitting the cached copy of it.
I'm honestly thrilled when other disability activists get quoted. The more of us there are getting out there, doing our variations on our main themes, the better.
posted
Wowbagger, I don't see where the situation with Delay's father has any bearing on this case.
As was quoted in the article:
quote:The congressman declined to be interviewed about his father's case, but a press aide said it was "entirely different than Terri Schiavo's."
"The only thing keeping her alive is the food and water we all need to survive. His father was on a ventilator and other machines to sustain him," said DeLay spokesman Dan Allen.
To me, there is a huge difference between being aritificially kept alive, and only needing food and water to live. I personally don't have a living will yet, but intend to have one. I don't want to be kept alive artificially on a respirator. However, I don't consider giving someone food and drink to be keeping them alive artificially. There is a significant difference between a respirator and a feeding tube.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The part that I don't get is the last few lines.
quote:Doctors advised that he would "basically be a vegetable," said the congressman's aunt, JoAnne DeLay, who suffered broken bones in the crash.
Like Schiavo, Charles DeLay had no living will, but he had reportedly expressed to others his wish not to be kept alive by artificial means.
He died on Dec. 14, 1988. He hadn't shown any signs of being conscious, except that his pulse rate would rise slightly when younger son Randall entered the room, Maxine DeLay said.
"There was no chance he was ever coming back," she said of her husband
They made this decision after a month. Terri has been like this for 15 years. His father didn't have a living will but because he told people he didn't want to live that way they let him pass. Terri told people she didn't want to to live under simular condition and Delay steps to try to stop it. I just find something wrong with that.
Posts: 796 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle, the only problem I have with your distinction between dialysis and nutrition (which I think is important, if not determinative, in this case) is that DeLay did not make that distinction in his public remarks about Schiavo - in fact, his choice of words seemed to deliberately avoid that distinction.
That said, Wowbager, DeLay stepped in to provide federal judicial review. I'm sure his preference would have been that the review result in her not being starved to death, but he didn't stop it. He provided for more review.
Further, there are significant differences between the two cases. If no family member had protested Michael's decision, Terri would have been dead in '97. I think DeLay's actions are actually consistent; his rhetoric has not been.
quote:To me, there is a huge difference between being aritificially kept alive, and only needing food and water to live.
Terri Shiavo was not simply being given food and water. She is unable to swallow. As a result, food and water must be pumped into her digestive tract using a tube that goes through her abdominal wall. This is a very close equivalent to a respirator, which provides the air we all need to live by pumping it into the lungs of a person who is unable to breath on their own.
Tom Delay might just as easily have said
"The only thing keeping her alive is the food and water and air we all need to survive."
If you believe that providing food and water through a PEG line is fundamentally different from providing air through a ventalator, please explain why because I do not see the difference.
To me the important question in this case is who, if anyone, should be allowed to make the decision to take any person off of life support and under what circumstance it should be legal to withhold life preserving medical care.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Supreme court denied again. Is this 0 for 5 now? And 13 days without food? How must she be feeling right now? It must be agonizing after 13 days without food and water, and no matter how much of a 'vegetable' she is, she's still feeling the effects of this. Posts: 6415 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:It must be agonizing after 13 days without food and water, and no matter how much of a 'vegetable' she is, she's still feeling the effects of this.
Not really. Even if you are fully conscious, after the first 2-3 days of a fast you stop feeling hungry because your body shifts into ketosis. Ask anyone who has done an extended fast. After 13 days, she probably feels better if she is able to feel at all she probably feels much better than she did after the first few hours. A similar thing happens with dehydration, after the first few hours, dehydration of the organs acts as a natural anesthetic.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
My Aunt and I were discussing this case and her problem with removing the feeding tube was it seemed to her that criminals were given more consideration than Terri with regards to what is considered cruel and inhuman treatment.
She said that if Terri has no hope of surviving, why not give her a lethal injection. The question isn't who gets to decide her fate, the question is whether or not we decide to act humanely as a society. If we would find it deplorable to starve to death a person on death row, how can we allow an innocent woman to be starved to death?
I am so torn on this case that I didn't have a response. If starvation/dehydration is so painless, why don't we use it on those who are going to be put to death anyway
Posts: 2425 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: If we would find it deplorable to starve to death a person on death row, how can we allow an innocent woman to be starved to death?
So Tom Delay's father was poisoned to death because they didn't put him on dialysis to clean out his blood? Or was he suffocated to death because they refused him a respirator? I am just curious. Or is there a distinction?
Posts: 896 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: If starvation/dehydration is so painless, why don't we use it on those who are going to be put to death anyway.
I totally agree that if society is going to kill her, they should have just given her the most swift, pain free death possible.
One of the right to die people on "Hardball", I think it was, said that the reason Terri was being starved to death was that when the law was being haggled out [I'm paraphrasing here], the right to life people wouldn't let people, non-criminals, die except through 'natural' means. I do not know if this is true.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:So Tom Delay's father was poisoned to death because they didn't put him on dialysis to clean out his blood? Or was he suffocated to death because they refused him a respirator? I am just curious. Or is there a distinction?
I don't know the case, and I purposely avoid the articles because they lead me down a road I'm not ready to travel yet. On one hand, I believe that allowing these imminently terminal patients to suffer extreme pain in order to have a "natural" death is cruel and inhumane. On the other hand, I have a real problem with someone other than God deciding when a life has run it's course.
The only thing that I am sure of is that saying that we are being merciful by slowly starving, slowly suffocating or painfully poisoning a person is a load of self-excusing BS.
Posts: 2425 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:So Tom Delay's father was poisoned to death because they didn't put him on dialysis to clean out his blood? Or was he suffocated to death because they refused him a respirator? I am just curious. Or is there a distinction?
As far as I can tell, LadyDove hasn't expressed undying support for Tom DeLay. Why bring him up? It seems to me that, at least on the message boards, far more people have been defining this issue as a two-party one to attack those who oppose or even express discomfort at the idea of removing the tube than the other way around. As if every person who opposed the tube removal agrees with the Texas Advance Directive Law (which implements an AMA-drafted futile care provision), or Tom DeLay's family's decision about his father, or even gay marriage.
posted
LD, one of the questions in this situation is did Terri feel anything we'd consider pain? I don't think you can assume either way. Even if she was thrashing about, it could be an involuntary reaction to her condition, but pain, as far as we understand and feel it as an emotion, could have been impossible for Terri to feel.
On the other hand, maybe she did feel pain. I just don't like either side making authoritative statements about something they can't know.
Her brain was measured as being 50% of the weight they expected it to be, proving without a doubt that she was in fact in a persistant vegitative state.
Bill Frist got on television and said that he said she was in a PVS all along. Regardless of the C-SPAN recordings showing him on the senate floor saying the exact opposite. Neither here nor there, but still funny.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
From my limited medical knowledge, (I'm currently enrolled in school for my Nursing Practitioner) the part of the brain that can decipher the messages sent from nerves, had been severely damaged. With the brain atrophy that she had suffered, it's [highly] unlikely that she felt what we call pain.
Posts: 11 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
what I don't understand -- if her brain was that deteriorated and that much smaller than normal -- why did they not already know that via MRI -- which would have settled some of the debate?
how much of the brain shrinkage, as well, was caused by the end of life dehydration? I mean, I realize it didn't cause the atrophy, and that she had serious damage, but was some of the shrinkage due to the dehydration?
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
