The Terry Schiavo issue in the states, right to die?

BEAT

I dont know if this news has been broadcast in Ireland or the UK but right now all you hear about in the news is Terry Schiavo and the right to die or live issue.
here is a link if you havnt heard about it:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Schiavo/

Basically, she had an eating disorder, she would eat and then purge. One day her heart stopped and the lack of oxegyn to her brain caused her to be a vegetable when brought back to life. She would never be able to speak or move, kind of in a coma but her eyes are open. She would never recover yet her parents kept her alive for the past 15 years on a feeding tube alone.

The husband requested to have the feeding tube removed so she could die in peace, the parents have been trying to have it put back.

As most of you know the Schiavo case has been brought infront of congress, federal and supreme courts.
They all denied putting the feeding tube back in.

I'd like to know your views here on more than one topic.

#1- Do you think the feeding tube should have been put back in?
#2- Do you think the country has had its head turned away from the social security issue by this on purpose?
#3- although inhumane to starve her, was it more inhumane to keep her alive in her current state?


I feel much sympathy for the parents and the husband as well as for Terry and though I think its wrong to starve her to death, I also dont think its right to keep her hanging on so her parents can hold on to a notion of her recovery that will never happen.
I think they should have gone about it another way.

I do think that the light has been shining on this case to make us ignorant to what is happening to the social security administration.

With no hope of her ever coming out of the vegetative state she was in I believe it was wrong to keep her alive. Its no life, and for all we know she doesnt even know she is alive or who the people are that are keeping her alive. The damage done was so extensive, it just looks like her parents cant find a way to let go so they keep her hanging on to make themselves feel better...which is very wrong.

What do you think?

neuro-praxis

I don't think they wanted to make themselves feel better. I think they didn't want to starve their daughter to death.

simu

They should have pulled the plug on her years ago. I don't know if she'll suffer starving to death - they should use a more painless method like a morphine overdose or something.

#2- Do you think the country has had its head turned away from the social security issue by this on purpose?

What social security issue is this? (Maybe it's explained somewhere on that page you likned to but there's so much stuff there I don'y have time to go looking through it all).

BEAT

nuero-praxis, perhaps its a little of both.

Simu, they have her on a morphine drip to ease any pain she is feeling.
It would have been the decent thing to do as you say, morphine overdose, it happens all the time. I think because the case is so publicised they couldnt in this case.

The social security issue I brought up,
Bush is trying to take away Social Security. There was an uproar when he came out with the plans to make it happen, then all the sudden news was taken off of it and switched to Steroids in sports then on to this Schiavo case, people in the media have said that perhaps these stories are getting so much play and that Bush himself got involved was to take away attention from something that affects everyone, the social security issue.

solo1

There is a law in Texas which legalises pulling the plug on people who can't pay for their health care. Check this out.

So there's another social security issue right there.

Also, anyone find it curious that the guy who's running across the country to fast-track "life"-saving legislation is the same guy who signed 152 death warrants when in charge of Texas state?

I think that the religious people should shut up and go away. All the medical advice from the doctors who have been working on her case says that she's in a non-responsive coma and will never recover. Her ex-husband says that it's her wish to die under those circumstances.

paulcr

I live in the states and am curious how others view us. Do you seperate us as citizens from the administration of George Bush?

paulcr

For the record Terry Schiavo case is not only about distraction of US Social Security Issue it is also playing to the Evangelical, Fundementalists, and Born Again zealots that support George Bush and his crazy view of the world both here and aboard.

Mikros

simu wrote:

they should use a more painless method like a morphine overdose or something.

I think there might be a difference between actively doing something (e.g. a morphine overdose) as opposed to the withdrawal of assistance, in this case a feeding tube. Granted the end result is the same, but the two means are very different. I'm not sure if it is a legal issue or not – maybe someone could clarify that.

Personally, I don’t think the tube should be reinserted. While it must be very difficult for her parents to let go, I think it is inhumane to actively prolong her life when she has no chance of recovery from a vegetative state.

I do think the whole case has been hijacked by various religious and political interests to promote their own agendas. I don’t know enough about social security in America to comment on whether this case is been used as a smokescreen, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was true.

bonkey

Mikros wrote:

I'm not sure if it is a legal issue or not – maybe someone could clarify that.

Yes, it is a legal issue.

Witholding aid when it has been determined to be the wishes of the patient is completely legal. That is what has happened here.

ODing someone is either euthenasia or murder (or both), and is illegal.

jc

ghost26ie

i would agree with paulcr, this is not just a smokescreen for his social security policy. it is widely known that Bush and many of his fellow republicans are very religious and very much pro-life people. he has shown a strong stance on pro-life issues like abortion. the schiavo case is just a way to his views across. it shows them as hypocrits. they have no problem letting anybody have a gun, but when another person is suffering they would like her suffer a bit more to further their causes.

krattapopov

clicky

bonkey

ghost26ie wrote:

it is widely known that Bush and many of his fellow republicans are very religious and very much pro-life people. he has shown a strong stance on pro-life issues like abortion.

You are aware that only last week in Texas, a child had his life-support pulled for no other reason than because his insurance company decided it was too expensive to allow it to continue.

Where was Bush then?

This has little if anything to do with pro-life belief, and everything to do with political opportunism. If the GOP "save" Terri Schiavo's life, they become renewed heroes to the religious right. If they fail - which they presumably will, and presumably always knew they would - then they simply get a bunch of the religious right holding up "Remember Terri" posters come next election. In effect, she will become a GOP martyr, and even though it wasn't the Democrats who actually will have been the cause of their death, they will be the ones to lose out as a result.

the schiavo case is just a way to his views across.

What views? He's signed orders to have prisoners executed. I may be mistaken, but I believe he has also signed orders allowing the removal of life-support more than once during his political career.

The hypocracy is in Bush claiming the sanctity of life is something he deeply believes in, whilst his actions belie the fact that he often only lives up to this sentiment when it is opportune.

but when another person is suffering they would like her suffer a bit more to further their causes.

Either :

1) Terri Schiavo is not in a Persistent Vegetative State (PVS), in which case she can suffer and it is right to try and keep her alive because she is not without hope of recovery.

or

2) Terri SChiavo is in PVS, and therefore is incapable of actually suffering.

Neither of these fit with what your alleging. For the Repoblucans to want her to suffer a bit more, they have to believe she falls into category 1, at which point they are fully correct to try and save her life.

jc

dearg_doom

paulcr wrote:

For the record Terry Schiavo case is not only about distraction of US Social Security Issue it is also playing to the Evangelical, Fundementalists, and Born Again zealots that support George Bush and his crazy view of the world both here and aboard.

This is what I find most sickening, these people(born-again Christians etc...) are trying to force thier extreme religious and thier moral 'values' onto more 'liberal' people,
When I can't think of anything as immoral and cruel as keeping your daughter alive with a machine.

These people are supposed to be religious, well if they really knew what Christianity teaches, they'd know that our body is only a vessel for our soul, our body is NOT us, our soul is what makes us who we are, and when we die, our body is buried, but our soul lives on. To all intents and purposes it seems this poor girl is beyond any help we could give her, she'll never recover no matter how long her body is 'kept' alive.

I just think she should be allowed to die with the dignity she, and indeed all of us, deserves.

neuro-praxis

dearg_doom wrote:

I can't think of anything as immoral and cruel as keeping your daughter alive with a machine.

Can't you?

Lucky you.

Zombrex

I never quite understood the issue here ... she isn't in a lot of pain .. they are not sure if she has higher brain functions, but they aren't certain she doesn't .. the parents say she has moments of what appear like baby like expressions of emotion or awareness.

My question is - Why kill her?

She has been like this for 15 years. The idea that she is wasting away, or that she should be left to die in peace is nonsense. She doesn't have cancer or anything, they are not prolonging her life for a few hours/days/weeks. She is capable of living for years.

Just because she now appears to be in a baby like, semi-conscious existence doesn't give us the right to end it. TBH and this may seem extreme to some, but this answer, that we should starve her to death because we want ... well I am not even sure what the rational is, it reminds me of the Nazi "solution" to mental disabled people in 1930s Germany.

Zombrex

dearg_doom wrote:

When I can't think of anything as immoral and cruel as keeping your daughter alive with a machine.

Er, my grand father was kept alive by a machine for weeks before he died. And I bet he was glad of those extra weeks.

dearg_doom wrote:

I just think she should be allowed to die with the dignity she, and indeed all of us, deserves.

That argument is 15 years to late .. and I think starving to death is hardly "dignity" ... there is not reason to kill her, the parents are willing to look after her

mrhankey88

well if you believe in god and what he says then you do what you can to save life, simple as that.

Hester

Wicknight wrote:

She has been like this for 15 years. The idea that she is wasting away, or that she should be left to die in peace is nonsense. She doesn't have cancer or anything, they are not prolonging her life for a few hours/days/weeks. She is capable of living for years.

She is not capable of living on her own. She is being kept alive by artificial means.

The argument here is that she wouldn't have wanted to be kept alive like this. Personally, I wouldn't want to be kept alive in those circumstances and I would hope that my family would respect my wishes.

Wicknight wrote:

My question is - Why kill her?

I disagree with your choice of words there. Removing the feeding tube is not in itself killing her. However, in this case I feel that euthanasia would be more humane than letting her starve. If it was legal, that is.

Her husband's motives have been questioned a number of times. I'm not sure where I stand with regards this situation. I don't believe it's morally wrong to allow her to die if that was her wish. Her parents are contradicting what the doctors have said even claiming that she tried to say "I want to live" before the tube was removed.
"Judge Greer, who had previously ruled against the couple, said their claim could not be believed in light of the medical evidence already considered."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4385027.stm

I think I tend to side with her husband on this one.

paulcr

When does keeping Terry alive via artificial means end? Sure the family is willing to keep her hooked up as long as they can distribute the insurance monies. But eventually this will run out...then what?

You are talking about a country that does not provide mandatory health insurance coverage. So, should we keep her alive while the uninsured that are capable of enjoying a fruitful life suffer?

I think its a sad state we are in...but as long as Bush can find money for the military and can't fund universal health care we'll be revisiting this subject in the near future.

Also, I'm curious....do you think as much attention would have been paid to Terry if she were African-American?

ghost26ie

in response to bonkey, did you know that one of the main opponents to her feeding tube being removed is a US senator, a republican, who in 1988, had a family member in the same position as Mrs Schiavo. his father was in an accident and was so badily injured, if was allowed to live he himself would have ended up in a vegative state also. on this occasion he and his family decided to allow him to die. kind of hipocritical. the senator's is Delay {don't know his first name}

paulcr

ghost26ie wrote:

in response to bonkey, did you know that one of the main opponents to her feeding tube being removed is a US senator, a republican, who in 1988, had a family member in the same position as Mrs Schiavo. his father was in an accident and was so badily injured, if was allowed to live he himself would have ended up in a vegative state also. on this occasion he and his family decided to allow him to die. kind of hipocritical. the senator's is Delay {don't know his first name}

His name is Tom Delay and he is one of the most unethical and dishonest senators to date. He is under investigation for numerous unethical practices and even stated that Terry Schiavo was a blessing to the republican party.

Its also worth noting that after his father suffered from this accident which was of his own design Mr. Delay turned around and sued the manufacturer of the device that allegedly caused his father accident.

He then tried to put forth legislation to limit liabilty law suits. I guess he got his.

bonkey

Tom deLay - Senate Majority Leader, if memory serves....

<edit>
Beaten to it....
</edit>

solo1

Do you seperate us as citizens from the administration of George Bush?

I know I do.

Why kill her?

No one's killing anyone. The proposal is that she be allowed to die.

paulcr

solo1 Do you seperate us as citizens from the administration of George Bush?

Thank God you do!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Zombrex

solo1 wrote:

No one's killing anyone. The proposal is that she be allowed to die.

Lets be clear about something here, she is not being "allowed to die" .. she does not have a wasting illness that is slowly killing her, like cancer or AIDS. She will die because she lacks the mental and physical ability to feed her self. Without assistance she will starve to death, in the same way a baby will starve to death without assistance.

What they are doing is not giving her food. That is not the same as allowing her to die. To me it is far more like killing her.

bonkey

Wicknight wrote:

Lets be clear about something here, she is not being "allowed to die" .

There's nothing clear about that at all. That is simply your opinion of how the situation should be interpreted.

she does not have a wasting illness that is slowly killing her, like cancer or AIDS. She will die because she lacks the mental and physical ability to feed her self.

Convenient distinction. She will die because it would require continuous medical intervention to do otherwise. This is no different to many people suffering from terminal (or potentially terminal) diseases whether they be curable or not.

Without assistance she will starve to death, in the same way a baby will starve to death without assistance.

She will also starve in the same way a hunger-striker would, if not co-erced to take sustenance. Its just another convenient parallel.

What they are doing is not giving her food.

They are not giving her food after determining to the (arguable) best of tehir abilities that this is her wish. Unlike your starving infant, but like my starving hunger-striker, they are not denying her food - they are not forcing her to have sustenance agaginst her wishes.

That is not the same as allowing her to die. To me it is far more like killing her.

By that token, one could argue that by allowing someone to smoke, the State is killing them.

Whether or not the court is correct in determining that these are Mrs. Schiavo's actual wishes is - incidentally - a seperate issue. If the process is flawed, then the determination is unsound - no question of that - but it would be unsound regardless of whether they chose to keep her alive or to let her die.

As it is, they have decided to obey what have been determined to be the patient's wishes. That is not akin to killing her.

I'm not, incidentally, saying that this is the only way to view it. I'm more trying to point out that comments like "lets be clear here" are somewhat misleading, as there is most certainly no clarity on this case. Its all about how you view someone's rights regarding their own life.

Beruthiel

I would hate to be in this position
the thoughts of spending my days on earth, for years on end, stuck in a bed with no quality of life seems horrific to me, I personally would want to die.
if she had stated in her will that this was her wish, would it have made any difference?

I have thought about euthanasia for myself if it ever came to this and it would be what I would want to do.
Of course as there is no law for this in Ireland, it makes things difficult, if I have enough wits about me at the time I will take a flight to Holland and hope to get it there. That's something I must research in fact as I know very little about their requirements.

Fysh

Beruthiel wrote:

I would hate to be in this position
the thoughts of spending my days on earth, for years on end, stuck in a bed with no quality of life seems horrific to me, I personally would want to die.
if she had stated in her will that this was her wish, would it have made any difference?

Apparently, legally, it would. Eerily, I discovered this through a link someone sent me to the Ultimate Warrior's blog (yes, the ex-wrestler). Apparently if she had made a living will, there would be legal grounds on which the feeding tube could be disconnected and the rest of the life support machinery turned off. (I'm not 100% sure about this, but it sounds on the level and I haven't seen any convincing refutals of the point disseminated anywhere.)

From tshirthell.com:

Eoghan-psych

Wicknight wrote:

Lets be clear about something here, she is not being "allowed to die" .. she does not have a wasting illness that is slowly killing her, like cancer or AIDS. She will die because she lacks the mental and physical ability to feed her self. Without assistance she will starve to death, in the same way a baby will starve to death without assistance.

What they are doing is not giving her food. That is not the same as allowing her to die. To me it is far more like killing her.

Let's be *very* clear here - "she" [in so far as "she" still exists] has been in a PVS for 15 years. Contrary to public opinion, that does not mean "she's a little under the weather". It means her brain is broken - kaput. An ex-brain.

Terry Schiavo the woman, the human, the person, has been dead for over a decade. The ethical thing to do would be a barbiturate overdose, but that isn't allowed by law in her state. The best alternative is removing the feeding tube.

Eoghan-psych

Beruthiel wrote:

I would hate to be in this position
the thoughts of spending my days on earth, for years on end, stuck in a bed with no quality of life seems horrific to me, I personally would want to die.
if she had stated in her will that this was her wish, would it have made any difference?

I have thought about euthanasia for myself if it ever came to this and it would be what I would want to do.
Of course as there is no law for this in Ireland, it makes things difficult, if I have enough wits about me at the time I will take a flight to Holland and hope to get it there. That's something I must research in fact as I know very little about their requirements.

Thing is, in that state you wouldn't be aware of your situation - to me, the thought of that is much more terrifying. That's why I've made it *very* clear to my family that I am *not* to be kept alive if diagnosed with a similar condition.

I'm looking into getting a living will and maybe a form of the medicalert bracelet - there seems to be a version in the states for 'living will' type things, DNRs etc.

Eoghan-psych

mrhankey88 wrote:

well if you believe in god and what he says then you do what you can to save life, simple as that.

According to the bible *I* read, that belief also involves the assurance that *god* can save lives.

Science has had her for 15 years - now she's in the hands of whatever gods, if any, are up there.

Beruthiel

Eoghan-psych wrote:

I'm looking into getting a living will and maybe a form of the medicalert bracelet - there seems to be a version in the states for 'living will' type things, DNRs etc.

I have spent the last 30mins doing up a rough draft for my solicitor, I found this site quite useful if you wish to do your own one.

http://www.oasis.gov.ie/death/legal_issues_following_a_death/making_a_will.html?search=wills

Zombrex

Eoghan-psych wrote:

Let's be *very* clear here - "she" [in so far as "she" still exists] has been in a PVS for 15 years. Contrary to public opinion, that does not mean "she's a little under the weather". It means her brain is broken - kaput. An ex-brain.

Terry Schiavo the woman, the human, the person, has been dead for over a decade. The ethical thing to do would be a barbiturate overdose, but that isn't allowed by law in her state. The best alternative is removing the feeding tube.

Why? The only possible justification for assisted suicide is if the person is fully aware, wants to die, is in pain and will die anyway. She is not in pain. She is not going to die anyway. And she certainly isn't fully aware. They believe she has no higher brain functions, but she has plenty of lower brain functions. Who are we to say that we don't believe her existance is worth while.

If this was actually her wish, that she made clear to everyone before she died, then I would have no problem with this decision, it should have been done 15 years ago. But we are basing all this on the word of the husband, who says his wife might have not wished to live like this over 15 years ago. How many of use would like to be held in a life or death situation by someone else based on there assessment of something we said to them 15 years ago.

As some in the Irish Times pointed out, if she is truely brain dead then there is no harm in her continuing to live with the care of her parents because she is gone. If she is still semi-self aware on some level then it would be wrong of us to kill her on the word of her husband 15 years after she entered this state.

If she is truely "gone" then starving her to death isn't going to make that much of a difference. But we cannot be certain she is really gone until they do an autopsy, which they obviously can't do till she is dead.

johnnyc

why don't they jsut eject with something that would kill Instantly and move on to the next story

Eoghan-psych

"She" has been dead for 15 years. Without *constant* medical intervention, her body would cease all functioning.

This absolutely should have been done 15 years ago - that's what her husband has been trying to do!

It is not a case of saying "her existence is not worthwhile" - she is in PVS, she *has* no "existence". "Lower" brain functions are the human equivalent of behaviour exhibited by amoebae. Her brain isn't pining for the fjords, it is *broken*.

There is indeed "no harm" in keeping her body alive - but what *good* is there in it? The medical expertise and resources expended on needlessly caring for her body could better be used caring for a person with some hope of an actual life.

As for determining whether or not she is gone - the autopsy is virtually irrelevent. Brain scans such as CT and MRI are equally as effective, and it is on the basis of these scans, and behavioural measures, that she was diagnosed as PVS.

Wicknight wrote:

Why? The only possible justification for assisted suicide is if the person is fully aware, wants to die, is in pain and will die anyway. She is not in pain. She is not going to die anyway. And she certainly isn't fully aware. They believe she has no higher brain functions, but she has plenty of lower brain functions. Who are we to say that we don't believe her existance is worth while.

If this was actually her wish, that she made clear to everyone before she died, then I would have no problem with this decision, it should have been done 15 years ago. But we are basing all this on the word of the husband, who says his wife might have not wished to live like this over 15 years ago. How many of use would like to be held in a life or death situation by someone else based on there assessment of something we said to them 15 years ago.

As some in the Irish Times pointed out, if she is truely brain dead then there is no harm in her continuing to live with the care of her parents because she is gone. If she is still semi-self aware on some level then it would be wrong of us to kill her on the word of her husband 15 years after she entered this state.

If she is truely "gone" then starving her to death isn't going to make that much of a difference. But we cannot be certain she is really gone until they do an autopsy, which they obviously can't do till she is dead.

Zombrex

Eoghan-psych wrote:

"She" has been dead for 15 years. Without *constant* medical intervention, her body would cease all functioning.

Without the constant medical intervention of food you would die aswell.

Eoghan-psych wrote:

This absolutely should have been done 15 years ago - that's what her husband has been trying to do!

So he suddenly remembered a converstation he had with her 15 years ago and decide now would be a good time to leave her to die?

Eoghan-psych wrote:

It is not a case of saying "her existence is not worthwhile" - she is in PVS, she *has* no "existence". "Lower" brain functions are the human equivalent of behaviour exhibited by amoebae. Her brain isn't pining for the fjords, it is *broken*.

Yes but you do not know for sure that she is not there, there there is no glimmer of existance. She is certainly very very badly brain damaged, but the doctors cannot tell for sure that all her upper and lower brain functions are gone without doing an autopsy. Her parents believe she shows glimmers of self-awareness. You are taking an awful risk assuming she is not self aware.

Eoghan-psych wrote:

There is indeed "no harm" in keeping her body alive - but what *good* is there in it? The medical expertise and resources expended on needlessly caring for her body could better be used caring for a person with some hope of an actual life.

The "good" is that you don't take the risk killing someone who might still have brain activity on some level.

Eoghan-psych wrote:

As for determining whether or not she is gone - the autopsy is virtually irrelevent. Brain scans such as CT and MRI are equally as effective, and it is on the basis of these scans, and behavioural measures, that she was diagnosed as PVS.

Medical science of the brain is not nearly at the level of precision you seem to believe it is. It is not possible to tell beyond all doubt that this woman is completely brain dead

Mikros

Wicknight wrote:

So he suddenly remembered a converstation he had with her 15 years ago and decide now would be a good time to leave her to die?

Well this case has been in the courts in one form or another since 1998. And it was as early as 1994 that her husband attempted to stop treatment. The fact that 15years has passed is more about the amount of time spent in courts rather than her husband deciding, as you put it, now would be a good time to leave her die.

Wicknight wrote:

You are taking an awful risk assuming she is not self aware.

This is always a very difficult debate but I think the point is that she didn’t want to be kept alive in the state she is in now. This is according to her husband and is also what the courts in America have agreed with. If you accept that position, then keeping her alive is wrong in my opinion. You are then taking a risk that you are keeping her alive in a state she would never want to be in… and if you think she might be self aware you are risking prolonging her suffering indefinitely.

Also using the term “starving” her to death is emotionally loading the debate, yes removing the feeding tube will result in her death by dehydration, but there is no evidence she is suffering as conscious awareness is impossible in a persistent vegetative state. By all medical opinion that is the situation in this case.

Eoghan-psych

Wicknight wrote:

Without the constant medical intervention of food you would die aswell.

Wrong. It does not take medical intervention for me to eat - I have full, conscious control over my body. Not only *can* I feed myself, but I am self aware that I *need* to feed myself and can take action to meet that need.

Ah, but what about babies I hear you ask - they cannot feed themselves, BUT they have the ability to learn, and their neural system is actively developing to enable them to do so. Terri Schiavo is not in that situation - she cannot feed herself, is unaware of the *need* to feed, and will never improve from that situation as her neural system is not regenerative.

Wicknight wrote:

So he suddenly remembered a converstation he had with her 15 years ago and decide now would be a good time to leave her to die?

No, he has been trying constantly for the past 15 years - Terri's parents however have launched dozens of legal challenges. This has been in the news for years, it has only gained international attention this time. It just happens that now, 15 years on, he is winning the fight against her parents.

Wicknight wrote:

Yes but you do not know for sure that she is not there, there there is no glimmer of existance. She is certainly very very badly brain damaged, but the doctors cannot tell for sure that all her upper and lower brain functions are gone without doing an autopsy. Her parents believe she shows glimmers of self-awareness. You are taking an awful risk assuming she is not self aware.

A diagnosis of PVS is not easy come by. An autopsy would not reveal the level of functioning, merely the neural capacity - it would reveal brain atrophy or vascular expansion etc, all of which can be seen on CT and MRI scans. MRI scans have the added bonus of showing the *activity* of the brain [in fMRI form], from which level of functioning can be deduced when combined with behavioural measures. Her higher brain functioning is absent - that is how a PVS diagnosis is arrived at. The brain trauma and behavioural deficits are sufficient that the medical conclusion is that she is not self aware.

Wicknight wrote:

The "good" is that you don't take the risk killing someone who might still have brain activity on some level.

That would be a risk if she was living in a hut on a desert island. She is not. She has been under constant medical examination for 15 years - and the medical consesus is that her brain activity is absent in any meaningful way - the "human" part of her is not there. *Corpses* have "brain activity on some level".

Wicknight wrote:

Medical science of the brain is not nearly at the level of precision you seem to believe it is. It is not possible to tell beyond all doubt that this woman is completely brain dead

It is *more* than capable of telling, beyond any reasonable doubt, that this woman is in a persistent vegetative state. Medical science is far more precise than you see to think.

Fysh

Wicknight wrote:

Without the constant medical intervention of food you would die aswell.

Yes. Because all of us need to be attached to life support machinery and supervised by medical staff in order to eat. *applauds*

Wicknight wrote:

Yes but you do not know for sure that she is not there, there there is no glimmer of existance. She is certainly very very badly brain damaged, but the doctors cannot tell for sure that all her upper and lower brain functions are gone without doing an autopsy. Her parents believe she shows glimmers of self-awareness. You are taking an awful risk assuming she is not self aware.

The majority of neurologists who have looked at her have said she has irreversible brain damage and there were two scans taken, one in 1996 and one in 2002. The only neurologist to counter this tried to claim that the second scan showed evidence of improvement - this was rejected by a judge based on lack of support of the idea from other neurologists. Given that we've previously accepted that in her position she requires constant medical care and supervision, I'm wondering why you're willing to trust the parents (not medically trained) over several neurologists.

Wicknight wrote:

The "good" is that you don't take the risk killing someone who might still have brain activity on some level.

Might, despite 15 years of no improvement and a significant majority of field experts so far having deemed her condition to be irreversible. Stretching the boundaries of credulity here - seriously, given that medical resources are far from limitless, why is it worth investing much further time and effort into someone who so far has shown no evidence of either improvement or the possibility of improvement?

Wicknight wrote:

Medical science of the brain is not nearly at the level of precision you seem to believe it is. It is not possible to tell beyond all doubt that this woman is completely brain dead

Frankly, given the number of neurologists involved and the presence of MRI scans in more than one case, I'm prepared to believe that, you know, they might be on the money with this. Her brain is, basically, broken. Not in a "give it a while and it'll heal" way, in a "wow, pretty much razed to the ground, huh?" kind of way, judging by the majority of medical opinion.

Zombrex

Fysh wrote:

Yes. Because all of us need to be attached to life support machinery and supervised by medical staff in order to eat. *applauds*

All of us need help obtaining food. Did you kill the cow you ate for dinner last night? I hope not. The idea that it is just nature taking its course by stopping feeding her is barbaric. She can't feed herself, but neither can the army soldier who had both his arms blown off. He can't feed himself, and will require life long help to feed himself. She we just let nature take its course there as well.

Fysh wrote:

The majority of neurologists who have looked at her have said she has irreversible brain damage
...
Might, despite 15 years of no improvement and a significant majority of field experts so far having deemed her condition to be irreversible.
...
why is it worth investing much further time and effort into someone who so far has shown no evidence of either improvement or the possibility of improvement?

Because the damage is irreversible doesn't mean we should kill her. God I feel like I am in Nazi germany.

Fysh wrote:

Her brain is, basically, broken.

Her brain is undoubtable "broken," but they cannot be certain that she does not still exist in some form of self-aware state, even if she only lives on with primiative brain functions.

As someone who hopes but does not believe in existance after death, I think any exisitance is better than oblivion. And the idea that we should kill this woman to save money, or time, or medical costs is, or the feelings of the husband, is in my view horrific.

Eoghan-psych

Wicknight wrote:

All of us need help obtaining food. Did you kill the cow you ate for dinner last night? I hope not. The idea that it is just nature taking its course by stopping feeding her is barbaric. She can't feed herself, but neither can the army soldier who had both his arms blown off. He can't feed himself, and will require life long help to feed himself. She we just let nature take its course there as well.

Now you're being silly. I'm feeling quite peckish right now, so when I leave the office I'm going to go home, under my own power, go to my fridge and take out the Cruch Corner yoghurt I've been saving and eat it. This will all be done under my own conscious control. Terri Schiavo cannot do that. Terri Schiavo will *never* be able to do that.

In fact, had the 50 people arrested for trying to bring her water gotten through, they would have KILLED HER. She would have drowned.

Wicknight wrote:

Because the damage is irreversible doesn't mean we should kill her. God I feel like I am in Nazi germany.

True. Thing is, the damage is much more than "irreversible". It is catastrophic and profound. The brain damage you caused by drinking that pint or that glass of wine the other night is also irreversible - but it is so minor that even the cumulative effects across your entire lifespan are negligible [barring alcohol abuse, which can bring on Korsakoff's for example - definitely not negligible].

Wicknight wrote:

Her brain is undoubtable "broken," but they cannot be certain that she does not still exist in some form of self-aware state, even if she only lives on with primiative brain functions.

"Primitive" doesn't mean "basic". Self awareness as we use the term when describing humans is a higher cognitive function. It is not simple reaction to stimuli.

What you need to realise is that neurology and neuropsychology are *far* more advanced than you realise, and that experts have examined Terri Schiavo *many* times - their consensus view is that she has no self awareness.

Wicknight wrote:

As someone who hopes but does not believe in existance after death, I think any exisitance is better than oblivion. And the idea that we should kill this woman to save money, or time, or medical costs is, or the feelings of the husband, is in my view horrific.

She *has* no human existence - that is the whole point. Imagine, if you will, a night's sleep with no dreaming. She has expressed to her husband that she would not want to be kept in such a state. If you *would*, then don't tell your family that you don't.

If there *is* any higher power out there, she's in her hands now - human reason and science have kept her alive for 15 years.

dearg_doom

O/T but:

simu wrote:

What social security issue is this?

President Bush is trying to force huge changes to USA's social security system (ie effectively abolishing it)

This was becoming a major issue, just when Joe Regular copped on just what it meant(finacially and in terms of 'risk') to him and his, just before all this hit the headlines.

The timing for such a religiously charged issue(Bush's undoubted strongpoint) to come up was very convenient, but them's the breaks.



link
link
linky
linkee

dearg_doom

neuro-praxis wrote:

Can't you?

Lucky you.

That is the most patronising post I've ever read.

I salute you, and have now changed my attitude and have realised that I was talking nonsense thanks to that extremely incisive and well made argument.

Cheers.



And to answer your question, No, as I said, I can't think of anything crueler.

If my parents had to make their decision, if I was in Terri's state, then I would hope they would stop medical intervention.

dearg_doom

Wicknight wrote:

Er, my grand father was kept alive by a machine for weeks before he died. And I bet he was glad of those extra weeks.



That argument is 15 years to late .. and I think starving to death is hardly "dignity" ... there is not reason to kill her, the parents are willing to look after her

I'm sorry to hear about your grandfather, but his experience has nothing whatsoever to do with this case.


This argunment is not 15 years too late! This is not an issue that has a sell-by date FFS, even if it wasn't this particular case, it WILL come up again.

As has been said earlier, there is no 'her' left to look after unfortunately, it is just cruel keeping her body alive with a machine.


And no matter what 'you' think of starving to death, the simple fact is that she would have a more dignified/peaceful end if the media would refuse to report on stories like this so sensationally. It just lacks respect imo.

dearg_doom

mrhankey88 wrote:

well if you believe in god and what he says then you do what you can to save life, simple as that.

Actually, I'm agnostic myself, but I have read the Bible, Koran and other religious texts.

And in the Bible you are told that the body is but a vessel for your soul, which is immortal.

And my point is that there is no life to save anymore unfortunately, just a body to 'keep alive'.

Which is not right imo.

Evil Phil

Wicknight wrote:

And the idea that we should kill this woman to save money, or time, or medical costs is, or the feelings of the husband, is in my view horrific.

These aren't the reasons the feeding tube has been removed. It was removed because it has been determined that this was her wish when she was aware. She's not being killed, she's being allowed to die as this is what she wants. All other arguments for or against removing the feeding tube are irrelevant.

neuro-praxis

Let us imagine that we have no notion of her wishes.

Then, I have to ask.

Who was it cruel to to keep her alive? And if the answer is - her - then why? If she was brain dead then surely there was nothing cruel about feeding her every day?

Evil Phil

That thought had occured to me - if she's no longer aware well then she's not aware of what's happening to her. So I suppose it isn't cruel to continue feeding her but I do think her wishes should be followed, out of respect if nothing more.

Eoghan-psych

neuro-praxis wrote:

Let us imagine that we have no notion of her wishes.

Then, I have to ask.

Who was it cruel to to keep her alive? And if the answer is - her - then why? If she was brain dead then surely there was nothing cruel about feeding her every day?

The care expended on her, for no gain or benefit whatsoever, detracted from the care which could have been provided to other patients, patients who could actually benefit from the medical aid.

That is to say nothing of the ongoing anguish caused to the family.

Zombrex

Evil Phil wrote:

but I do think her wishes should be followed, out of respect if nothing more.

We don't know it is her wishes, that is the whole point. The husband believes that she would not want to live like this. Is he right? We don't know. Her parents, sister and brother don't think so.