Life or Death

This is a truly terrible case & my heart goes out to all those involved in it.

Can I ask a few questions?

How many of us, if placed in a similar position, and had actually talked about this with family & loved ones beforehand would actually ask to be kept alive? given similar circumstances.

Ok.. we are human... but how would we treat any other creature in these circumstances?

I guess no-one actually realy wants to 'play god' in this instance.

I do hope that a solution can be found that will bring peace to all involved, but I guess this is going to be impossible here.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve2701:
This is a truly terrible case & my heart goes out to all those involved in it.

Can I ask a few questions?

How many of us, if placed in a similar position, and had actually talked about this with family & loved ones beforehand would actually ask to be kept alive? given similar circumstances.

Ok.. we are human... but how would we treat any other creature in these circumstances?

I guess no-one actually realy wants to 'play god' in this instance.

I do hope that a solution can be found that will bring peace to all involved, but I guess this is going to be impossible here.

Playing God isn't necessarily a bad thing - given good intentions and a proper knowledge of the facts as they stand... and prospects for the future.

As a slight tangent, it has long been my opinion that ANYONE should be able to request that they be euthanased by a qualified medical practitioner regardless of their physical state. The time of one's own death should be, as far as is practicable, at one's own discretion: I might wish to call it a day despite the fact that I am young and fit: you shouldn't have to be terminally sick to receive legal, medical help to die in a painless way.

If a person is not fit to "decide" (if that is a relevant/pertinant quetion when one is scarcely conscious) then clearly a choice has to be made "for the greater interest". I'd like to hear a proper argument for keeping someone alive who might as well be dead. And I would also like to hear a [good/convincing] argument for denying someone a dignified death at the time of their choosing when they expressly wish to be dead.

I suppose, in the last analysis, life is worth living; but not always and not at any cost. And not under any circumstances.

EW

quote:

Originally posted by Steve2701:

How many of us, if placed in a similar position, and had actually talked about this with family & loved ones beforehand would actually ask to be kept alive? given similar circumstances.

Ok.. we are human... but how would we treat any other creature in these circumstances?

I guess no-one actually realy wants to 'play god' in this instance.

Most of the arguments and propositions in this thread so far have relied on hypothetical situations to either state the writers' feelings or present their position. If ever there was an ethical question to be answered with reference only to the situation at hand - this is it.

While there are strong arguments for both keeping and removing the feeding tubes, the so-called 'pro-lifers' demonstrate a surfeit of hypocrisy.

1) Ms. Schiavo is reported to have stated on a few occasions that she did not want extraordinary measures taken to prolong her life in this sort of instance - but since she said this to her husband, the family refuses to accept the statements...and to be sure, there's no proof she made those statemnets...but....

2) Ms S breathes on her own, but she can't chew or swallow. Removing the feeding tube (done last Friday) condemns her to a terrible death.

3) Her former guardian ad litem is both an MD and a lawyer; he has stated that her 'responses' are random. He agrees that she is in a vegetative state and will not recover. He spent months attempting to create a compromise bewteen the family and the husband but met no success.

4) the @#$% president of these united states signed a Texas law while he was the #$%^ governor that precludes the congressional action and provides a much different resolution that he espuses as president.

5) Ms. Schiavo's care has been paid by a $1M malpractice suit and by medicaid - and the #$%^ing repulicans want to reduce malpractice settlements and medicaid, so who the #$%^ is supposed to pay for Ms. Schiavo's care?

6) All precedent in US law leaves these decisions up to the states. But conservatives have seen an opportunity to bash Democrats, so they waste congresional time on this...instead of the budget, the bidget deficit, the victory in Iraq, etc.

This is a sad and tragic case. I have great sympathy for the Schindlers, but I fault them for wasting national resources because they are unwilling to face facts. And they're too willing to force the rest of us to share their pain - Terri's husband will have no release if Terri lives, and we in the blue states will ahve to pay for Terri's care (since the blue states pay more in taxes than we recive in federal funding, and Florida pays less than it receives).

I am further angered by the willingness of 'republican leadership' to take up this unwise, unnecessary, and unprovoked battle. They love to deal in symbolic bullsh$t - but they dodge any attempt to understadn the problem and come up with human and humane resolutions.

Personally, I would not want to continue life as Ms. Schiavo is forced to do for 2 main reasons: 1) it would be agony for the people I love, and 2) I would rather have the money spent to keep me alive spent on people with a better future - the money spent on TS is much better spent on supporting nursing home beds for several indigent Alzheimer's patients. Or immunizing kids, or improving school lunch programs, or....

It's difficult to talk of money when a life is at stake - but the &^%$#@s folks who want Ms. S to be fed forever are the same folks who love the death penalty and refuse to pay for education, health care, and a clean environment for the rest of us.

I'm too pissed off about this to go back and correct my abysmal spelling.

Regards.

Phil

quote:

Ms. Schiavo's care has been paid by a $1M malpractice suit

If this is the case, then the guilty party mus be duty bound to keep paying the costs until she dies and the medical team must be duty bound to keep her alive under the hypocratic oath.

Is it THIS simple ?

quote:

Originally posted by Phil Barry:
While there are strong arguments for both keeping and removing the feeding tubes, the so-called 'pro-lifers' demonstrate a surfeit of hypocrisy ...

...I'm too pissed off about this to go back and correct my abysmal spelling.

Phil,

Abysmal spelling aside (and I didn't notice any) my objection to your comments is that you seem to insist on making it a political issue and I don't think it should be.

Thank goodness (so far) in the UK issues like abortion and euthanasia are considered not to be party political issues and MPs have been permitted to vote with their own consciences.

Your clear Democratic bias (which you're absolutely entitled to hold) weakens your arguments IMO.

Regards
Steve M

U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights , Article 25:

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

Just a quick comment to counter some factual problems in this thread.

Removing food would not result in a disgusting, painful death. Pts in this situation become weak and succumb to infection, much as those with other progressive terminal conditions. There is no reason not to ensure that she receives adequate pain relief. It is far from clear if she has the capacity to feel pain. This process was followed with Tony Bland (fater an important legal case), injured at Hillsborough and in PVS subsequently. He died peacefully, quite quickly and surrounded by great care and affection.

Secondly, it is not the relatives job make these decisions. Doctors have a duty of care for the patient (to treat and alleviate sufferring as well as keep alive). Whilst the views of family should be considered they no power other than to inform those who have the responsibility of her care. Relatives are not always 'independent'. The law/judges are not stupid, but the law is a crude tool for such sensitive cases, each of which has unique features. In the UK at least it has been the case that the doctors and family have asked for clarification in law where one is in dispute with another.

Hippocratic oath? No such thing. Read this for the modern 'equivalent'.

Bruce

7V-
I agree that this should not be a political issue but it has been made one.

This thing has been in the courts for over seven years. The courts have consistently ruled that the tube can be removed. The law has been followed.

Congress and the President made this political when they passed a law that attempts to force yet another round of court reviews, this time in federal court which does not have jurisdiction, as this is a state matter. (actually the president's younger, smarter brother, the Gov. of Florida has been cashing in on this poor woman's suffering for years) This is blatantly unconstitutional. Our constitution separates the powers of the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of government. Each branch has its own function. Just because one or both of the other branches don't like the result of a legal finding for instance, does not allow said branches to pass a law that attempts to force a "do over". This matter is further complicated by the fact that the Federal Legislative and Executive branches have attempted to strip power from a state court and pass it to a federal court. Ironically, it is the Republicans who have, typically espoused a strongly pro-states rights position, frequently accusing the Democrats of pushing for a "Big Brother" state.

How did it come to this?

My view.

A young woman's heart stops for ten or more minutes causing massive brain damage, leaving her as we see her. She can't chew or swallow so no tube, no life. Hubby says that she said that she would not want to be kept in such a state. She didn't write this down, or tell parents or friends. Hubby and parents go to court. Seven years later "right to life" groups have taken this up as a cause, reportedly donating millions of dollars in cash and free legal representation to the parents. I do not believe that the anti-abortion, pro-war, pro-death penalty, "pro life" sickos give a rats ass about Mrs.Schiavo or her understandably frantic, distraught parents. I think that Bush and Co. saw a chance to score some points with their rabid, "rapture right" political base. I doubt that they thought that this ploy would really work. This was a show for short term gain. Next week they will be using some one else. And on and on......

DCT

quote:

Originally posted by David Tribe:
I do not believe that the anti-abortion, pro-war, pro-death penalty, "pro life" sickos give a rats ass about Mrs.Schiavo or her understandably frantic, distraught parents. I think that Bush and Co. saw a chance to score some points with their rabid, "rapture right" political base.

David,

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Some good points have been made for allowing this woman's life to end by ceasing the feeding. I have also read some good points in favour of continuing the feeding. As has been mentioned already on this thread, this is not a clear-cut or simple issue.

As easily as you describe "anti-abortion, pro-war, pro-death penalty, 'pro life' sickos", others could describe "baby killing, pro-despotic, anti-democratic, 'soft on murder' sickos" who equally place their infantile political views above genuine concern for Mrs. Schiavo and her family. In either case, such silliness weakens the case for or against genuinely held views on this very sad and complex situation.

Regards
Steve M

quote:

Originally posted by Hawk:
My wife has a terminal illness and i know at some point in the future we will have to let her escape her suffering.

My sympathies; my dad has terminal bone cancer, so I could well be in a similar situation - maybe as soon as the summer

On Teri again; if she's neither vegetative OR braindead, starving her to death is MURDER plain and simple. If she caught pnuemonia or something, PERHAPS that could be acceptable to not give her medication, but that's a REAL grey area...

Certainly, if she can't make up her own mind, but has some form of brain activity (HOW does she react to her environment, does anyone know???) then just starving her is bloody awful.

Why does her husband refuse an MRI scan????

For my 2pennysworth,
I think, that everybody is missing the main issue here, surly the question is not about just keeping a "body" alive by artificial means at all cost's. We have a right to expect more than that.It is not "just" Life that counts, but more importantly the quality of life.
I have a elderly relative,by marrage whom I love dearly, that through out her life was a deaply careing person[a midwife and district nurse]who was held in great respect by not only those who worked with her, but also hundreds if not thousands of her patients.The one thing that I vividly remember her saying,when she returned from attending to people suffering from dementia and terminal illnes,was about peoples right to Die with dignity.She always said that if she was ever unfortunate enough to be in the same position[as them ] she would want,in her words, to take the paracetamol.Now unfortunatly, the irony is, she now has a advanced stage of aggressive dementia, is doubly incontinent,can not walk,is unable to recognise any of her family,or once familiar objects,has no concept of time or even where she is.She is aggresive to all around her and so is condemed to spend all day in a wheel chair until she is moved,in her own private mentally tormented hell.This is not, in my opinion the actions of a careing society.
The one thing that lifts human species above other species is the ability to enjoy a quality of life, without that quality of life, what is left?.
On a somewhat differant track I find it very ironic that our Goverments spend Billions of £/$ killing people without so much as a passing thought,but then get sanctimonious about allowing individuals the right to Die with Dignity.
oldie.

Quite. But what mechanism can be put in place to ensure that easing death isn't mis-used. At what time do you draw the line that has to be crossed. The grey area is too difficult to tamper with for so many legal reasons.
I agree, there should be a way to deal with this in a respectful and decent way, and in many cases it has always gone on privately and unofficially by caring medical staff, but then Harold Shipman turns up and illustrates the dangers of legislation.
Ironically, I have a new daughter on the way, and I have been there at the scans to see her fully formed, wriggling about. At one time she was sucking her thumb (well, it looked like that!), but then she turned around, took her thumb away but carried on chewing. We have already named her, and as my earlier thread, we play her music via headphones on the bump, which she reacts to. She likes to sleep during the day and wakes up at about 8.30pm for a few hours, and again for a little wriggle later in the evening. Yeah, it's like she is already here.
Up until last week, we could still have had her aborted.
That is murder. Draw your own comparisons.

quote:

On Teri again; if she's neither vegetative OR braindead, starving her to death is MURDER plain and simple. If she caught pnuemonia or something, PERHAPS that could be acceptable to not give her medication, but that's a REAL grey area...

Certainly, if she can't make up her own mind, but has some form of brain activity (HOW does she react to her environment, does anyone know???) then just starving her is bloody awful.

Why does her husband refuse an MRI scan????

A 'picture' of her brain in an MRI scan provides is unlikely to provide really useful information about her brain function. Morphologically normal brain may be utterly uselsss, grossly abnormal scans can be compatible with preservation of function.

Murder is defined as active intervention with intent to kill. Witholding nutrition with the intention of alleviating pain and suffering is not murder. The 'law of double effect' applies in the UK. It is acceptable to give (or withhold) treatment if the prime purpose is to alleviate pain etc even if that has the effect of hastening death. Many of the legal arguments around similar cases here are about wether food/water constitutes treatment.


Bruce

It is my belief that we already have that "mechanism" in place,we have already entrusted a careing group of our sociaty to make these decisions on our behalf, and I also beleive that "they" make these decisions every day of their working life, we just sanatise it by not, generally, wishing to know about it.I once saw a copy of guidance notes alledegly given to those who have to make these type of decisions and depending on age, marrital status, dependant children etc points were awarded with a maximum number achieved by someone being of the age of 20/30 married, with children, and I think ,but can't remember correctly even employment status was included. It is unfair to quote the likes of Shipman, fortunatly he was a one off, that the system failed to respond to, the amount of morphine he requested should have set alarm bells ringing everwhere and should have been up by those suppling him, but thats water under the bridge now, and should not, in my opinion, be allowed to influance informed intelliegent decisions about peoples right to Die with Dignity and without pain.The oft time quote maxim "you wouldn't let a dog suffer like that" springs to mind.
oldie.

quote:

Originally posted by oldie:
For my 2pennysworth,
I think, that everybody is missing the main issue here, surly the question is not about just keeping a "body" alive by artificial means at all cost's. We have a right to expect more than that.It is not "just" Life that counts, but more importantly the quality of life.
I have a elderly relative,by marrage whom I love dearly, that through out her life was a deaply careing person[a midwife and district nurse]who was held in great respect by not only those who worked with her, but also hundreds if not thousands of her patients.The one thing that I vividly remember her saying,when she returned from attending to people suffering from dementia and terminal illnes,was about peoples right to Die with dignity.She always said that if she was ever unfortunate enough to be in the same position[as them ] she would want,in her words, to take the paracetamol.Now unfortunatly, the irony is, she now has a advanced stage of aggressive dementia, is doubly incontinent,can not walk,is unable to recognise any of her family,or once familiar objects,has no concept of time or even where she is.She is aggresive to all around her and so is condemed to spend all day in a wheel chair until she is moved,in her own private mentally tormented hell.This is not, in my opinion the actions of a careing society.
The one thing that lifts human species above other species is the ability to enjoy a quality of life, without that quality of life, what is left?.
On a somewhat differant track I find it very ironic that our Goverments spend Billions of £/$ killing people without so much as a passing thought,but then get sanctimonious about allowing individuals the right to Die with Dignity.
oldie.

Oldie me old Seagull, having just read your last 'thoughtful' post; may I just add a farthing or two to boot ! Although agreeing with many of your sentiments (and I refer to UK/Europe here) regarding the unfairness of it all, and the natural double standards set by the governments we unfortunately elect on a regular basis, my own general thoughts on the subject are the following. Barring any individual (whoever she or he may be) reaching old age without contracting such serious mentallly delibitating illnessess such as altzheimers or acute Dementia (Iris Murdoch or Ronald Reagan as well known examples come to mind) I have for awhile now been of the opinion that we individuals to a certain extent can actually prevent/ slow right down (in many cases) their progress. Being a luck of the draw aspect in regards to each individual's 'personality' of course and strength of character when left totally to their own devices.
Early retirement (for varying reasons) , lack of imagination, lack of hobbys, lack of physical movement on a regular basis, the correct diet, all contributary factors to bringing on depression, and subsequently phsycosematically induced illnessess that eventually become real, and early death ensuing. As I say; it's luck of the draw to a certain extent, but also in today's world most preventable in many cases I feel, I hate to comtemplate the future generations of 'present young Obese cases' that'll more likely than not be unemployable, unmotivatable, and essentially a new class of mindless people across the board, that'll essentially die young too, also from depression related diseases, amongst others including drug & alcohol related stuff, due to the ever increasing spending power these folk seem to have, innit.


Fritz Von Gypsies, Chavs & Debt³

N.B. Oldie, I'm obviously (I hope?) not comparing your Dear friend's case with these thoughts; I was just inspired by your own two-pennyworth.

Yes Graham,
It is a very difficult area to be in, and I'm sure that a lot of what we do in our lives can and does influence our inevitable demise, but there is also a lot that we have no influence over as well, such as,what food you can afford,Stress, where you are employed the materials you work with, the list and computations is endless.But at the end of the day we claim to be a humanitarian sociaty,and to comdemn someone to a living/dieing hell, when they could be allowed passage without pain and with Dignity is not my idea of a careing sociaty.
I have in the past had the unfortunate experiance of attending to some very close friends who were suffering from the effects of terminal cancer and dispite claims of a ability to be able to control their pain they spent a considerable time dieing racked with pain that we could only just begin to imagine.Now I'm not for one minute suggesting that a list of the "unwanted" should be drawn up by Goverment agancys for assisted passage, but we have to recognise that these decisions are already taken daily, Who has the operations , kidney Dialysis,Transplants,etc.etc. The concept that these informed, inteligent,decisions have to be made, has already been accepted, most of us hide from these facts every day of our lives we just sweep it under the carpet so to speak, and allow others to do it for us. In my opinion it's time it was all brought out into the open and rational debate was allowed.So that we could all take part in planning our own Dignified painless inevitable departure from this world.For my self I hope that I will be allowed the right, when the time comes to decide along with my loved ones the means of my departure.
oldie
Ps If I don't get on with my house work now, before my better half returns from work, that may well be sooner, rather than later.

Thanks for that response me old Oldie, I just wanted to say that as tragic as Cancer (T) etc, cases are, the patients (irrespective of age) can very often make their wishes clear.


Fritz Von Beckham for Bournmouth I would say