I kind of agree with you...
Though I am slightly sided to letting her die, it's been 15 years. Where are the signs of improvement?
I kind of agree with you...
Though I am slightly sided to letting her die, it's been 15 years. Where are the signs of improvement?
There will never be improvement since she is MISSING part of her brain. It is gone (according to CAT scans).
The fact that the federal government is intervening in this should disgust every American who favors any sort of states rights. Nineteen judges have looked at this, and all credible doctors have said that there is no chance of recovery (because part of her brain has liquified). It's a sad day for states rights and this sets a dangerous precedent. Imagine where any time the federal government disagrees with the decisions of a state, they call an "emergency meeting" and pass a quick bill to intervene. And as someone said, I wonder what else is going to be tacked onto this bill?
Sad sad day.
The fact that the federal government is intervening in this should disgust every American who favors any sort of states rights. Nineteen judges have looked at this, and all credible doctors have said that there is no chance of recovery (because part of her brain has liquified). It's a sad day for states rights and this sets a dangerous precedent. Imagine where any time the federal government disagrees with the decisions of a state, they call an "emergency meeting" and pass a quick bill to intervene. And as someone said, I wonder what else is going to be tacked onto this bill?
Sad sad day.
Ya know... AT/P&N can be a brutal place. It reminds me of the joke about going to a fight and being surprised that a hockey game broke out... but occaionally, there is some really good stuff to be learned here.
The above post is a great case in point. Finding a totally NON-BIASED source, that puts forth the facts in both legal and layman's terms... well, it really puts an entirely different light on the entire, unfortunate, situation.
I, for one, am having second, third and fourth thoughts on this case due to that website. I still wish there were a way to NOT have her starve to death while letting her go though.
Thank you totalcommand for posting that link.
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
You have to pose an argument if you want me to argue against it. You merely wished a horrible fate on me personally, which is what makes you a troll. Your continued idiocy simply verifies my earlier comments.Originally posted by: Taejin
Right, you have no coherent response to my argument, so you give me a cookie and call me a troll. Nice try CycloWizard, but I fully illustrated the entire predicament Terry is in, and you have attempted to sidestep the question.
Next time, try attempting to address the weaknesses in your argument. Calling everyone who cuts through your BS a troll won't win you any points.
C'mon CycloW, tell us how you think Terry must feel kept alive for 15 years trapped in her body.
EDIT: Didn't your mother to think of things in other people's shoes? Well obviously you couldn't do that, so I helped you along. Try being more thankful next time
I really doubt you want to have a science/medicine debate with me, sir.
Give me a freaking break. If you didn't notice, I wished on you the horrible fate that Terry Schiavo is currently undergoing. Not ONLY THAT - you just admitted to yourself that Terry Schiavo's fate is horrible, and you and your cronies are submitting her to it, and are even planning on extending it. Good job mister, you just blew off your own toes.
Anything else?
If you didn't notice, the fate of Terry Schiavo is horrible. Would you ENJOY being in her state? I doubt it. Your deliberate (or otherwise) use of nonsensical language in describing her plight and wishing it on me both qualify as jackassery in my book. How can someone be 'almost' brain dead? Simply because her fate is horrible does not mitigate the necessity of society to find the appropriate means of dealing with her fate. If you'd care to stop acting like a child, then maybe you can contribute something here. Until then, this is adult swim time, so kindly stay out of the pool.
In general, I would warn against using 'quality of life' as a determining factor when deciding whether or not someone else's life is worth living. It is a strictly subjective measure that one cannot even accurately apply to himself, much less to someone else. I don't see quality of life as a criterion at all. Rather, I see life as the criterion, regardless of quality. There are very well-defined criteria for declaring brain death, and brain death is certainly distinct from being in a vegetative state. My first thoughts on the case at hand (and similar cases) are that, unless brain death has occurred, there is no sufficient motivation to remove food or water from anyone. The cost of this treatment is absolutely minimal, yet this seems to be the only reason for wanting to stop treatment. I do not believe in a 'right to die', but there is certainly a fine line in determining whether a treatment is futile, how best to preserve the dignity of the patient, and knowing when enough is enough. It is contrary to the dignity of a person to sustain them by artificial means after death has occurred, other than to allow the family a very brief time to have their last moment with the patient.
I have known people that have died via brain death. Trying to explain this to families is hardly trivial, and many will not understand that the treatment is completely futile. Still, in such cases, I believe that it's grossly unethical to artificially support the body after the mind is completely gone. Vegetative states, however, are not the same thing as brain death. If the consciousness remains, then the person is not dead. Providing sustenance to such people is a merciful act that costs society almost nothing, and I would support it unless proof that consciousness has completely left the patient has been supplied.
Sorry for rambling, but I have a lot of thoughts that are not necessarily very well organized. I'll try to read the link some tonight and tell you what I think about this particular case.
Just a few quick thoughts...
How does dignity factor into this? It seems like a subjective factor, which you argued against, a "quality of life". Why does quality of life matter only after "brain death"? It seems counterintuitive since your brain would have no idea what is going on.
What about cases where the patient has a living will saying they want to die should they be in such a vegetative state, or a state in which their only "conciousness" is reflex action and they are completely uncommunicative?
This is irrelevent, but what would you personally want to happen to yourself should you be in such a state?
How does dignity factor into this? It seems like a subjective factor, which you argued against, a "quality of life". Why does quality of life matter only after "brain death"? It seems counterintuitive since your brain would have no idea what is going on.
What about cases where the patient has a living will saying they want to die should they be in such a vegetative state, or a state in which their only "conciousness" is reflex action and they are completely uncommunicative?
This is irrelevent, but what would you personally want to happen to yourself should you be in such a state?
Dignity of person is a principle, much like justice, that laws should seek to uphold. In cases such as these, dignity is not served by keeping a brain dead individual's body alive. Quality of life considerations don't apply in cases of brain death, since the patient is already truly dead when the brain dies. I think that is a large source of confusion in this debate. Brain death, IIRC, is a condition in which the brain stem keeps the heart/lungs/body working but the rest of the brain is dead, thus no consciousness exists within the person.
Like I said, I don't believe in the 'right to die.' If consciousness exists within the individual, then they are still alive and should be treated accordingly. Depriving such a one food and water is contrary to dignity of the person, even if they desired it - it's essentially the same as assisted suicide to stop feeding such a patient. Depriving them of more heroic measures (e.g. machines that live for them) is another matter, since these measures are not within the context of life in and of itself - they are actually artificially keeping the patient alive, whereas simply supplying food and water is logically no different from hand-feeding a patient to allow him to live.
I've thought about that quite a bit. Like I mentioned somewhere, I had to write an advance directive/living will for a class, and it was probably about the hardest assignment I've ever had. I would prefer to receive food and water but nothing else, unless there was actual hope for improvement. I would agree to artificial support in the case of brain death (or other cause of death) to allow organ donation, but no longer than is necessary to complete the operation. I still have some hesitation about these guidelines, but I can't really justify any arguments against sustaining myself using such minimalistic measures, even if I would like to do so. I'm not so sure that I consider such a life 'worth living', but like I said, I'm not even in a position to make that call for myself at this time, and my opinion would likely be much different if I were actually in such a state and capable of thinking such thoughts.
What is the source of this principle of dignity? Why does this principle matter only after the person is "dead", or have brain death? Could you define "dignity" better? I'm not sure what you mean.
So in cases when you deny supplying things to the patient, and the rest of the patient's body is functioning on its own, that person is getting assisted suicide, but when you stop doing things (i.e. breathing) for the human body, that person is not getting assisted suicide? (just clarification) What do you call these latter cases?
How does this all relate to the right to die? I thought your only criterion was brain conciousness. Or do you mean that the criteria are both brain conciousness and the ability for the body to function on its own?
This is all just for clarification. The heart of your argument lies up there with what you mean by "dignity".
Personally, I think this is one of the easiest decisions I can make. I consider my ability to communicate with others and participate in this world as central to my humanity, and for that reason, I would want to pass away should I reach that state (vegetative) or become brain dead. For me, it's not really about a life "worth living", but rather that I've lost all that I believe lets me be human. My only connection to humanity at that point would be the pain and suffering that others would feel by my death - that's my only concern about this decision. But I believe that it would be better for them to let go than see me in that state.
Terri has lost her higher brain function; CT scans show that a lot of the cerebral cortex is missing and has been replaced by cerebrospinal fluid. Her actions seem to be purely reflex, though Frist, a former doctor, claims he can diagnose Terri as not in PVS by simply looking at videos of Terri that are on her parents site.
Hey CycloWizard - since you seem to like to overreact to what you perceive as personal attacks against your character (Not that I even know you, or give two sh*ts about you), why don't I frame the question directly so I can relieve your burden of actually having to understand what I'm saying.
We both agree that braindead or not, to assume the best of Terry's condition and say that she is in some part conscious and aware, AND being trapped in her body for 15 years is a horrible fate, right? You said so yourself. So here's the kicker -
If we both know that being trapped like that for 15 years is horrible, how could you be opposed to relieving her of her fate? In fact, if she has ANY higher-order brain activity, you want to keep her in her body, locked in that horrible prison.
C'mon Cyclo? Try justifying that one, because you yourself didn't seem like you wanted to be stuck in your own body for 15 years unable to do anything.
You should agree that wishing a horrible fate on someone is a childish thing to do, at best. You're obviously not interested in any serious discussion, or else you would have read the in-depth points I've made in response to members of this forum who actually contribute rather than simply troll. You can try to drag me down to your level, but it won't work. I'm done with you.
Nice one CycloW - so you won't admit or deny that your opinions would differ were you in the same situation as Terri, which conveniently excuses you from contradicting yourself during this entire debate.
Try replying to my serious question at the top of the page, instead of using some old excuse about how childish the argument is. As I said, since you seemed be unable to play ball, I played your game - except now that you can't make excuses about my new posts, you just resort to the same tired excuse. Glad to see you are back to obfustucating when you have no other defenses.
Dignity something that I, as a well-intentioned person, should accord all other persons. It's essentially a respect for that person based on their simply being a person. It's very similar to justice in that it should be meted out to all persons, regardless of their actions or current state. I can't necessarily put my finger on a 'source' for it, other than perhaps innate humanity itself.
If you're denying a basic necessity of life (food or water) to someone, whether by your wish or theirs, it's essentially assisted suicide. If you're discontinuing heroic treatment, you're merely acknowledging your inability to stop the onset of death. Determining what constitutes 'heroic treatment' is fairly complex, but a good rule of thumb is whether the treatment is within proportion to the possible outcome. For example, a heart transplant for a 120 year old man could probably be considered a heroic measure.
The 'right to die' essentially implies that one can choose the manner and time of his death independent of his maladies. The most obvious examples of this are suicide or assisted suicide. People who seek to end their own lives are acting against their own dignity, as well as society's interest in their continued survival. Society makes a substantial investment in each individual in many ways, and it is therefore in society's interest that the individual lives to repay society. The person choosing to die for reasons of despair or ongoing pain (due to illness, depression, or whatever) is acting selfishly, neglecting familial and societal outcomes. Of course, those who end their own lives are rarely mentally sound, so they can't necessarily be faulted for their actions, but the principle is there.
This is where the personal decision becomes important. I don't see any ethical problems with not undergoing treatment in such circumstances. There are a lot of complications that arise in such situations (as is obviated by the Schiavo case) in how exactly to determine your state of consciousness and so on, and this can lead to a great deal of anguish for your family, particularly if they think your advance directive is being misinterpreted. If you do go this route, I would definitely encourage a thorough discussion with anyone who would be concerned with such an outcome, as a ten minute discussion likely could have prevented the entire Schiavo debacle. Family members often have a hard time letting go, even if the manner of passing is in accord with the patient's wishes. Grieving people are often not very reasonable to deal with, either.
Legally - Husband has the right to say whether she lives or dies, not the government.
Ethically - The woman is brain-dead with zero hope for recovery. It serves no purpose to keep her alive.
Love how the Republicans value "a quality of life", yet over and over again, spit in the face of that value.
Ethically - The woman is brain-dead with zero hope for recovery. It serves no purpose to keep her alive.
Love how the Republicans value "a quality of life", yet over and over again, spit in the face of that value.
It's still a little too fuzzy for me. It's important to find this source of dignity, because it will show me why it should apply to the brain dead and not to the PVS patients. What is it innate in "dignity" that makes it applicable to the brain dead but not applicable to PVS patients?
If dignity is respect that's based simply on a person's humanity, and it should be given to all persons, why can't I take someone (or myself) off a feeding tube in the name of dignity?
This dignity thing is probably the thing I would argue against, but I don't want to do that yet because I don't know exactly what it is, and when it should be used and why.
But if the person has no conciousness, is withdrawing food or water still assisted suicide? Are you sure your criterion is not simply consciousness?
If a person is conscious, but is on a "heroic treatment", should that person be allowed to die?
By the way, for when you come to a conclusion on the Terri case, in Florida a feeding tube is considered a life support system by law. I would agree with the law in saying that feeding tube is a heroic treatment, because the person cannot swallow any more.
But I think society is being selfish for keeping the person in pain or despair. The individual has made a substantial investment in society also. Ironic, huh? Personally, I think for each case there is a separate answer as to whether suicide is correct. In cases like PVS, however, I lean towards allowing assisted suicide.
The problem for me is not determining consciousness but determining that the person is uncommunicative, cannot participate in any way in the world, and has no chance at rehabilitation. Nevertheless, this is just as hard to diagnose as consciousness.
From what I have read, Terri satisfies all of the above - she is uncommunicative, cannot participate in any way in the world, and has no chance at rehab. Therefore, in my opinion, she has the right to do if she so chooses. Apparently, she expressed this to her husband, and he must be given the power to decide since he has been most intimate with her.
her209
No Lifer
- Oct 11, 2000
- 56,336
- 11
- 0
Any truth to this article? It was published in Novemeber of 03.
http://www.sptimes.com/2003/11/08/Tampabay/Schiavo_s_wishes_reca.shtml
http://www.sptimes.com/2003/11/08/Tampabay/Schiavo_s_wishes_reca.shtml
It certainly must be applied to both. Meh, I guess I'm working on too much other stuff while trying to hold this discussion. I'll get back to this when I'm done with this other stuff.
judasmachine
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2002
- 8,515
- 3
- 81
I say we let mr. delay personally care for her and pay her medical bills, so he can feel like a good christian.
<Edited. Reduced rant version>
The only that really matters here is that her parents are selfish. Plain and simple. Her siblings, friends and HUSBAND knew she didn't want to live like that. Her parents are suffering from outliving-their-child syndrome. It really is unfortunate though. Also, that comment she made that she dies when God is ready for her is jacked up. What does she expect? Get sick and die? Get hit by a car and die? Oh wait.. when you die, you die from organ shutdown, correct? Let's see, her major brain functions are dead so...
Anyway, if there's any good and our government isn't that friggin stupid like with the congressional hearings on baseball (OMFG), they make it easier for people to create, store and access living wills. That's the best thing that can come out of this that affects the rest of us.
The only that really matters here is that her parents are selfish. Plain and simple. Her siblings, friends and HUSBAND knew she didn't want to live like that. Her parents are suffering from outliving-their-child syndrome. It really is unfortunate though. Also, that comment she made that she dies when God is ready for her is jacked up. What does she expect? Get sick and die? Get hit by a car and die? Oh wait.. when you die, you die from organ shutdown, correct? Let's see, her major brain functions are dead so...
Anyway, if there's any good and our government isn't that friggin stupid like with the congressional hearings on baseball (OMFG), they make it easier for people to create, store and access living wills. That's the best thing that can come out of this that affects the rest of us.
kage69
Lifer
- Jul 17, 2003
- 31,305
- 47,486
- 136
Starving to death is considered one of the "nicer" ways to check out - as your body begins to cannibalize itself, the brain releases endorphines and supposedly the later stages are somewhat euphoric. Pain-free? No, but it's not the pain-wracked end you're implying.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter