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

neuro-praxis

Ha! So person-ness is defined by the brain - and that is a scientific concept? I must look up "person-ness" in one of my husband's books on neurology!

Eoghan-psych

neuro-praxis wrote:

Ha! So person-ness is defined by the brain - and that is a scientific concept? I must look up "person-ness" in one of my husband's books on neurology!

My deliberate use of quotation marks *kinda* undermines your implied argument.

I could have written "higher cognitive processing consistent with self awareness and associated human capacities", but I found "person-ness" to be much shorter.

And yes, person-ness is defined by the brain. A human with a functioning brain and no limbs is no less a 'person' than someone with all four limbs intact in fully working order. The human person is defined by the higher processing in the brain - that is the signature.

Moriarty

She's just died, by the by.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4398131.stm

Brain-damaged Terri Schiavo dies

Terri Schiavo, the brain-damaged Florida woman at the heart of a bitter legal dispute, has died, a spokesman for her parents said.

Mrs Schiavo's feeding tube was disconnected on 18 March, following a seven-year battle through the courts.

Her husband Michael Schiavo had said his wife would not have wanted to live in her current condition.

The 41-year-old's parents fought to the highest level of the US courts system to keep their daughter alive.

LizardKing

Rip

BEAT

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7293186/?GT1=6305


**edit**
*Moriarty got here first it seems *

dearg_doom

Wicknight wrote:

No, the courts decide that she is in PVS and that he is next of kin, which means his wishes of what should be done are followed. He claims that his wishes match what he believes she would have wanted.

So where is your problem then?

If it is his wishes, and he says his wife's wishes were to be allowed to die in such a situ, and he chooses to fulfil what he feels are her wishes on the matter, who are you, her parents, President Monkey, Laura Bush, some redneck preacher or any other person on this planet to question/interfer with his choice?

This whole issue smacks of typical WASP/Republian/religious interference. There are even posters here questioning his integrity, and trying to slander his charachter. It's a disgusting way of debating this issue.

Hester

dearg_doom wrote:

If it is his wishes, and he says his wife's wishes were to be allowed to die in such a situ, and he chooses to fulfil what he feels are her wishes on the matter, who are you, her parents, President Monkey, Laura Bush, some redneck preacher or any other person on this planet to question/interfer with his choice?

Yes, as her legal guardian, her husband had every legal right to make this choice on her behalf. But her family vehemently disagreed that Terri would wish to die in these circumstances, and it would be worrying if they did not have a right to interfere with his choice. Just because he is her guardian does not necessarily mean that his choice is the right one!

This whole issue smacks of typical WASP/Republian/religious interference. There are even posters here questioning his integrity, and trying to slander his charachter. It's a disgusting way of debating this issue.

There are two sides to every story. In some reports Michael Schiavo is portrayed as a caring husband who wanted to carry out his wife's wish. In others, he is the villain who wanted to bump his wife off so he can remarry. I don't know which is the more accurate, and neither I suspect, do you. I must admit, it did seem a bit harsh for him to send her family out before she died, as the reports say.

It's over now anyway. It will be interesting to see what the autopsy shows up.

Fysh

Hester wrote:

Yes, as her legal guardian, her husband had every legal right to make this choice on her behalf. But her family vehemently disagreed that Terri would wish to die in these circumstances, and it would be worrying if they did not have a right to interfere with his choice. Just because he is her guardian does not necessarily mean that his choice is the right one!

Well, ok. But if they did disagree so strongly and she was in fact as keen to be kept alive artificially in such a way, one wonders why there isn't more proof of this. And frankly, I've heard a variety of arguments from the family about why she should be kept alive, including the claim that not doing so violated her right to religious worship, which seems faintly ridiculous since the woman hasn't been able to speak or communicate for 15 years.

Hester wrote:

There are two sides to every story. In some reports Michael Schiavo is portrayed as a caring husband who wanted to carry out his wife's wish. In others, he is the villain who wanted to bump his wife off so he can remarry. I don't know which is the more accurate, and neither I suspect, do you. I must admit, it did seem a bit harsh for him to send her family out before she died, as the reports say.

A villain who wants to remarry? Yes, because that necessitates her dying. What with the total absence of divorce in the US- oh, wait. Sorry, but that's a pretty damn stupid argument right there. Besides which, why would he put up with it for 15 years and then decide "Hey, let's get rid of her and get back in the dating game?" How much actual evidence is there for this notion?

(I agree, I'm not in an ideal position to reach a conclusion about this. But before I decide to agree the man is a despicable fiend, I'd like something more convincing than the parents saying "He's only doing this for personal gain, and completely coincidentally he disagrees with us. But the personal gain bit is what matters. Really." Not that I don't sympathise with them - they've just had a personal tragedy become international news and apparently hijacked for political and PR purposes by a variety of people, including President Monkey (:D) and the Vatican. That doesn't mean I agree with the way they appear to have conducted their side of the argument.)

Hester wrote:

It's over now anyway. It will be interesting to see what the autopsy shows up.

Agreed. The question is, how many neurologists will have to look at the remains of her brain before agreement can be reached about its state (as in, one way or another)? And who would be to blame in the (imo unlikely) situation that she were diagnosed as not being in PVS and therefore possibly capable of recovery? Would it be the judge, the doctors, the husband?

Hopefully some good will come of this in that the so far taboo subject of assisted suicide/the right to die will be discussed openly, in an attempt to get some much-needed legal clarity on the issue.

neuro-praxis

Eoghan-psych wrote:

My deliberate use of quotation marks *kinda* undermines your implied argument.

I could have written "higher cognitive processing consistent with self awareness and associated human capacities", but I found "person-ness" to be much shorter.

And yes, person-ness is defined by the brain. A human with a functioning brain and no limbs is no less a 'person' than someone with all four limbs intact in fully working order. The human person is defined by the higher processing in the brain - that is the signature.

So. You think we should find ways to let mentally handicapped people die too? Maybe we could starve them - or give them an overdose?

Because, they aren't persons.

Infini

It's a difficult issue. On the one hand you have the parents who wanted the husband to divorce her and let them take care of her. They didn't want to let her go. On the other you have the husband who didn't want his wife to be kept alive by artificial means because she was pratically brain dead. While it might be harsh if a person's brain has been pretty much destroyed and there is no hope of any recovery it wouldn't be fair to keep them alive if they didn't want to be.

dearg_doom

neuro-praxis wrote:

So. You think we should find ways to let mentally handicapped people die too? Maybe we could starve them - or give them an overdose?

Because, they aren't persons.

I HOPE that was some *attempt* at post-modern irony or something...

That post is just ridiculous,

do you really consider twisting this guys words into some disgusting Nazi-style image and then try to pass it off as his idea any way to conduct a ****ing debate??

You Sir haven't a clue.

Eoghan-psych

neuro-praxis wrote:

So. You think we should find ways to let mentally handicapped people die too? Maybe we could starve them - or give them an overdose?

Because, they aren't persons.

Are you *genuinely* incapable of understanding the difference between PVS and learning disability? Is that how ignorant you are?

Those with learning disability have a reduced level of functioning. PVS means *no* level of functioning in the human spectrum.

That you can't see the difference says much more about your position than it does mine.

neuro-praxis

Um, there is more to mental handicap than "learning disability". If you had any experience with the wide and far reaching realm of special needs you would know we're not just talking about Downe's Syndrome here. I didn't mention learning disability - you did. I was referring to the hundreds of children born each year with no life to speak of, and no learning capability at all in fact, spending their days in wheelchairs, mute, uncomprehending, poor to no motor neuron skills, unable to function in any normal way. In fact, there was a person quite close to me growing up who was in this state. She could do nothing but sit or lie, and is spoonfed and has her nappy changed to this day (she's now almost twenty).

Is she not a person, worthy of dignity? Has she no "person-ness" because her brain does not function properly? Is she "dead" - as Shiavo was referred to while still very much alive?

Should she be starved to death? She is an enormous drain on her family and on the state, requiring costly respite care for at least two days a week, so that her mother can go out and run errands that go with caring for five children. She will probably die in a few years anyway.

It isn't as though this woman has dyslexia.

Sangre

In all seriousness Neuro, what is your point?
What arguement are you trying to make?

neuro-praxis

Sangre, point is: however you wish to argue the euthanasia debate (and I do believe that there are situations where it is justifiable), claiming that it is cruel to keep someone alive by feeding them, when they are not in pain, is absurd. My point is that "personhood" is not defined by the state of your brain.

It may have been very emotionally painful for Schiavo's husband to see her in her state, but I don't think that starving her to death so that he could have peace about it was the answer.

Sangre

How else could you possiblely define 'personhood' than through brain activity?

neuro-praxis

Through virtue of being human flesh and blood?

Sangre

So a corpse has 'personhood'?

neuro-praxis

Sangre.

Living flesh and blood. There was no need for me to say that.

Sangre

Well I disagree, I can't think of any other way to define someone then his brain and thought proceeses, hell you could put it in a monkey and I'd still call it a person.
For me no brain activity = no person.

Eoghan-psych

neuro-praxis wrote:

Is she not a person, worthy of dignity? Has she no "person-ness" because her brain does not function properly? Is she "dead" - as Shiavo was referred to while still very much alive?

Should she be starved to death? She is an enormous drain on her family and on the state, requiring costly respite care for at least two days a week, so that her mother can go out and run errands that go with caring for five children. She will probably die in a few years anyway.

It isn't as though this woman has dyslexia.

So spoonfeeding this "person" and changing their nappy is dignified is it? Is that *really* respecting the person? Is that granting her respect is it?

As for your dyslexia reference - nobody mentioned dyslexia. But thanks for trying to sensationalise the topic.

Face it - any organism that does not show human levels of functioning cannot be described as a living human. To say anything else is to abandon reason.

Eoghan-psych

neuro-praxis wrote:

Sangre.

Living flesh and blood. There was no need for me to say that.

Humans display "living flesh and blood" long after death. Organ transplant teams make use of this every day.

The single feature which unmistakably and unerringly defines the human person is the brain. That is our one unambiguous feature.

Otherwise, bonobos are human.

dearg_doom

Hester wrote:

Just because he is her guardian does not necessarily mean that his choice is the right one!

Firstly, he is NOT just her legal guardian. He is her HUSBAND!

And since he is, that makes him her legal guardian; which is what the 11year court case was all about. Since he is her legal guardian, by definition, this DOES necessarily mean that his choice is the right one! It means it is his desicion to make, and his alone.


This is the worst part of the case imo. It is none of anyones business who or what this guy is, be him an alko, junkie, gangster, hill-billy, it is his desicion. That means it doesn't matter what anyone else's opinion on the matter is!



I was watching the 'McLoughlan Report' on CNBC at the weekend, it's normally a good indication of how real Americans feel on a given week's issues. But I was amazed that all of the panelist, be they diehard red or blue, agreed that this guy was the scum of the earth and the parents were done out of their rights!

One guy even said he wanted new reforms of marriage laws to strip the spouse of their undeniable marital rights and transfer some of these rights to their parents! MADNESS!

I'm not married, but from my experience of relationships, I choose my partner, and she chooses me. Niether of us choose each other's parents FFS. They should be just passengers in any major desicions that the couple make imo.

pickarooney

Didn't read the whole thread, so this may have been said before -the key issue was respecting Terry Schiavo's wishes. She made it abundantly clear, before she went into a coma, that her wish was to starve to death, so what was all the confusion about?

BEAT

pickarooney wrote:

Didn't read the whole thread, so this may have been said before -the key issue was respecting Terry Schiavo's wishes. She made it abundantly clear, before she went into a coma, that her wish was to starve to death, so what was all the confusion about?

I really shouldnt have laughed at that but you are right when ya think about it, and hey I am already in hell so...hahaha right on brotha

Call_Me,Stan

pickarooney wrote:

Didn't read the whole thread, so this may have been said before -the key issue was respecting Terry Schiavo's wishes. She made it abundantly clear, before she went into a coma, that her wish was to starve to death, so what was all the confusion about?[/QUOTEY]

You're messing, right?

BEAT

no...incase you didnt know Terry ended up the way she was because of her eating disorder...she would eat and then purge.
So he took her lifestyle to mean that she would rather die starving