Terri Schiavo Update

Thank you, janko. I have always enjoyed debating you and most of the other posters on this board. The level of thoughful, intelligent conversation is impressive. I hope we can keep it that way.

Deb

 

Good point and prehaps with me, and some of the other posters, it is our personal feelings entering into it. I would not want to live that way or force someone I loved to care for me in such a state. I would want someone to pull the plug. Those of us who have expressed that opinion also seem to think that Terri would as well.

It also forces us to the question of what is life? Is a human just a body or is there more? Does the spirit go with the mind? With consciousness? It would take a much more philosophically or religiously trained person than me to take on those two questions. I think it is also something each of us has to decide for ourselves.

My feeling currently is that both her parents and her husband have actually lost track of what Terri might want. It has become a power struggle with them, a one-upmanship war. I do think the parents have played the crowd better, especially with releasing the video of her moving. Despite that, I do have some sympathy for all involved - especially the judges who have to decide the outcome.

 

Well, but that's the exact question, isn't it? IS Terry Schiavo a "living" human being?

Suppose for a moment that there is no consciousness and best medical opinion is that there never will be. Then can we say that there is no "self" either? No innocence or guilt becuase there is no decisional ability?

Is this poor creature alive in any sense that could be called human? Is it possible that human intervention through medical science is actually doing HARM by stopping the natural process of death for one who cannot, say, eat and more importantly, cannot realize that she should eat because she cannot"realize" ANYTHING?

My purpose here is not to argue either way; I don't have the evidence available to me. I do suggest, though, that we should approach this question with a profound distrust of our emotional reactions and preprogrammed responses.

The issue is NOT trivial. The answer is NOT obvious and we do everyone a disservice by pretending that it is.

 

What wonderful advice. My father had a very serious complication after surgery and the time came to decide if we should remove life support. I am so thankful that my mom, my brothers and I were spared the agony of making a decision. My dad left very specific instructions.

I think we can all agree on one thing. Whatever Terry might have or have not wanted, she certainly could not have envisioned the bitter battle going on between her parents and husband.

I can't speak for her, but if it were me, above all else I would want that to stop.

 

Something I do on a regular basis is assess medical patients decisional capacities. I don’t care to weigh into this discussion other than to say it is just an awesome responsibility. These cases are rarely adjudicated; I wish they were. I’d sleep better a lot of nights if I could fob it off on a judge. For those who are interested, I recommend the following text which is remarkably helpful. The authors explain complex legal issues in plain English. I teach this to PA, med students, residents and psychology interns so I’m pretty familiar with the landscape.

Grisso T, Appelbaum PS: Assessing Patients' Capacities to Consent to Treatment: A Guide for Healthcare Professionals, New York, Oxford University Press, 1998.

There are four decisional capacities that pertain to making these determinations: understanding, appreciation, reasoning, and the capacity to express a choice. Not all jurisdictions employ all four. Understanding refers to the person’s grasp of the disorder in the abstract whereas appreciation refers to recognition of the personal significance. Here’s an example. Two people have gangrenous big toes and both are advised the condition is considered life threatening and amputation is required. A looks at B’s toe and says of course its gangrene and B must have an amputation. A looks at his own toe and asserts it’s just a bruise and the provider is wrong. A understands the basic disorder but doesn’t appreciate what it means to him. The reasoning standard refers to the capacity to grasp and weigh treatment alternatives. The ability to express a choice is the capacity to inform others of one’s wishes.

Nosborn is absolutely on target when he says this isn’t trivial, the answers aren’t obvious, and he wisely cautions against giving in to our emotions. Grisso and Appelbaum describe this as avoiding “false empathy.”

 

It is amazing to me that those who push for the extinction of a human being based on that person's handicap have trouble being compared to Nazis. The philosophy that drives you to think this is okay is exactly the same as their philosophy. If you are so offended by it, perhaps it is because the description is completely valid? Just substitute the word "Jew" or "Black" for "Terri" in your statements and maybe you'll be as repulsed as I am.

BLD

 

Well, I'm appalled that you're appalled. This isn't a time to play nice with the killers. It's time to take a stand for the sanctity of human life. If that offends some, so be it.

BLD

 

People with Down's Syndrome do not require medical technology in order to live. Mrs. Schiavo's husband just wants to let nature take its course. The governor of Florida and the parents want to prolong Mrs. Schiavo's death, a I cannot envision anything more cruel or inhuman than that. That being said, are you in favor of withholding pain medication from cancer patients, because it may hasten their death?

 

According to one of Focus on the Family's policy experts (on top of the above issue you mention and they did as well), a Neurological journal reports that in one study it appeared that about 30% of persistent vegetative states (PVS) may not be so, rather near conscious states.

Also, the program claimed that there appears to be some recognition from TS.

Not sure but there seems to be some reason for doubt.

I can feel for the parents who do not want to watch (especially considering the above) their daughter slowly starve and die of
thirst (especially if partially conscious). Killing her may not be the answer.

Maybe her husband could turn over custody to her parents. Unless I heard wrong tonight on Focus on the Family, he is lving with another woman and has children by her. Let TS's parents take over the situation and preserve her life. He then could finish going on with his life.

North

 

Bad analogies.....

Art 1 § 2 of Florida's state constitution provides that "All natural persons, female and male alike, are equal before the law and have inalienable rights, among which are the right to enjoy and defend life and liberty, to pursue happiness ---- No person shall be deprived of any right because of race, religion, national origin, or physical disability." See www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?Mode=Constitution&Submenu=3&Tab=statutes

It doesn't matter if Terry needs medical assistance in order to stay alive. She is deserving of equal treatment despite her disability. People in her position should be protected, not discarded like garbage.

Providing pain medication to cancer patients is completely different from the situation here. Starving Terry to death would cause pain and directly cause death, not alleviate suffering.

Apparently, the process would take about two weeks. How more cruel can you be? Why don't you go sit in a room without food and drink for two weeks, and then tell me how it feels? Why don't you just lobby to have her strapped into the electric chair?

Contrary to what any of the theorists here say, this decision is not a difficult one. Terry is alive. She is breathing. Her heart is beating. She smiles at her family. Whoever pulls that plug will be committing cold blooded murder.

 

Of course, this is apples and oranges as I'm sure you're aware. But let me put it this way...I certainly wouldn't withhold food and water from them. Would you? That's what they want to do to Terri. Simply let her lay there and starve to death. You don't think that is cruel? If you did that to your dog you'd be arrested.

BLD

 

Ah'll take mah stand--in the pulpit of my church, thank you very much.

Only someone wilfully obtuse would deny that without exception clergy of the Wisconsin Ev. Lutheran Synod are "pro-life" in all the ramifications of that term. I do not need to slander other posters in order to "take a stand." I do not need to pervert this board into a mudslinging contest in order to be quite firm in my convictions about abortion, euthanasia, and allied issues. And I am quite immune to theological bullying by persons with whom, to put it most politely, I find myself in doctrinal disagreement sufficient to bar not only eucharistic fellowship but participation in joint prayer as well.

I do not believe that spewing hatred adds to the winsomeness of the "stand" I have chosen to take.

I do believe that calling posters of good will "Hitler" is an unconscionable desecration of the memories of the real victims of National Socialism.

I say again, have a care for the reputation and purpose of degreeinfo.

 

Medical technology....

Does this mean you would be in favor of killing those who need pacemakers to survive?

 

Notice a pattern here?

Sad indeed. Guess we better cut John 17 out and flush it.

I'm also glad you weren't the one with the 95 Theses. They would have never been nailed to the door.

BLD

 

It's amazing to you that we don't appreciate being compared to Nazis??

 

It is amazing to me that you can't see that you are pushing the same philosophy. If you'll actually read my posts you'll see I never said anyone was a Nazi. My point is that you are adopting the same philosophy that will ultimately lead us to that state.

BLD

 

So now we're all killers too?

 

Bink,
What do you call someone that kills someone? Is there a label that you would find more palatable? When someone pulls a feeding tube out of a person and starves them to death they are killing them. What do you want me to call it?

BLD