To take a departure from the war threads, I was wondering what everyone thinks about the Terry Schiavo case. This is the woman in Florida who had her feeding tube removed by a judge's order, (it was just put back in by governor's order). If you're not familiar with this case you can read a little about it here: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/15/n...00&en=ef51b4ae27599095&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE I've been trying to keep up with this case, mainly because I think that what is happening here is both a disgusting travesty and setting a terrible, terrible precedent. Medical and bioethicists have for years been advocating euthanasia as a means to both shave off some of humanity's less successful edges (a very Darwinistic approach) and to reduce health care costs. In the Netherlands, for example, this is legal (and about 30% of the deaths reported there are against the patient's wishes, which sounds like murder to me). What do you think about this case, and about the concept of euthanasia in general? On this poll, I know it's a huge generalization, just please let the axe fall one way or another.
Tricky. I am typically for "death with dignity" initiatives like the one Oregon had. However, it's hard to write them in a way that doesn't allow abuse. In fact, the disturbing thing is that Hitler used euthanasia laws for his first government-assisted murders. He literally just kept stretching the definition of what was "for one's own good."
I feel that if a mentally abled adult makes the decision that he or she doesn't want to artificially be kept alive, then that's their perogative, and their's alone.
And what about when, as in this case, the adult has made no such decision, RM95? Mrs. Schiavo never left any indication that she wouldn't want to live like this. All the court is going on is what the husband is telling here, which is quite different from what the parents are saying.
I thought that she had said she didn't want to live with a feeding tube...I didn't realize it was only her husband saying that she said that. It's definitely a touchy issue. Unfortunately, at this point, since they'd already started the process which may now make any sort of potential recovery near impossible, I think it would be best to remove it. Another issue here is cost. Who's paying to keep her alive?
Yeah..I have a real problem with a court making this determination for me. Absent some express provision in some document somewhere...made by me while of sound mind...I don't want this decision being made. This is why you should all sign a Directive to Physicians (at least that's what a living will is called here in Texas)...makes these decisions a lot easier on the people you're leaving behind.
Deckard - just search for it. Won't be hard to find. RM95: The husband was awarded something like 1.8 million dollars to care for here, has apparently never spent anything on rehabilitation ($800,000 of which was supposed to go directly for rehab), and has apparently squandered it all away. He also has a live in girlfriend and a child by that girlfriend, with another on the way. It is obvious that he just wants his near-comatose wife out of the way. And why do you think it would be best to remove the tube now? That's like a docter making an error in a surgery, and then saying "F* it, let's just put her out of her misery".
It'd be best now because once the court ordered it removed, they started the process. From http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/10/22/coma.woman/index.html "Terri was almost a week into her death process," Felos said. "The doctors have said that introducing hydration and nutrition artificially, she may have already suffered massive organ failure and kidney damage. What this may have done is just prolonged her death process." If this is indeed true, I think the wisest and most humane course of action would be to go ahead and remove the tube and let her die peacefully. Also, do you have a link to support your claims about the terms of the settlement? The CNN link only mentions that he was awarded over a million and that the $50,000 that's left has been frozen. It doesn't say why or how that money was to be allocated.
what's absolutely nuts to me is the cutting off of hydration and nutrition. in the standard form for a directive to physicians in texas it says, in essence, you can pull the plug, but don't make me suffer...make it as easy as possible...don't stop providing me with nutrition/hydration...in other words, let me die of my condition...don't let me freaking starve to death or die of thirst.
Euthanasia is not quite the same thing as halting artificial life support, IMO. In this case though, her biological family felt like her husband initiated this process to ge his hands on $1,000,000 that his wife would have inherited (if she had died when he started this action). He also appararently has moved on emotionally and has a girlfriend. I think I would trust her family about her wishes.
That's one of the problems when you get into cases like this. Her family says she has a possibility of living, and 15 doctors testified that she could recover. Her husband, however, wanted the plug pulled. That makes me real nervous when, like Cohen said, there's money and another woman involved now. Also, he has not only moved on, but he and the other woman now have a kid!!!
One of the very interesting issues with this case is the seperation-of-powers questions it brings up. The courts have sided with the husband over and over because he claims that his wife would not have wanted to kept alive in a persistant vegetative state. She's been in this state for 13 years. The US Supreme Court and the Florida Supreme Court each refused to hear the case because they found there were no reasons to overturn the appeals court decision. What do the lawyers out there think about the decision of the legislative branch to step in?
All I ask it that they remove her picture from the front page of CNN.com. That is just not pleasant to look at.
I guess the issue here that really scares me is that we have a sitting judge ordering the execution (and it is an execution, since sghe would otherwise have lived - she is not on life support) of a person who has committed no crime, and who has not indicated that she would want to die. Against the parents wishes. All on the word of the husband, who obviously has other motives. How can this not scare anyone?
i agree entirely...this is why there are such strict standards for preparing a living will...this is why the legislature writes out the form for it and you simply fill in the blanks. it has to be specific because we're dealing with a human life! we can't play a guessing game with life. "well...i bet she'd want to die...so go ahead and do it." that's just not good enough...and if it is, then why are so many people wasting time with living wills?
What if she really did tell her husband that she would not want to live like that? BTW, this is cetainly something I have discussed with my wife but not my parents.
It's my understanding that the legal and medical precedents established since the Karen Ann Quinlan case establish the spouse as the primary decision-maker in cases like that? Is that true?
HootOwl: I don't know for sure, but I think that is accurate. But it doesn't seem to me to be a good rule to go by, especially when the spouse can essentially tell the parents to screw off. Seems like a new precedent needs to be set. After this case, my fiance and I are sure as hell going to have a chat about this subject.
