Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: eskimo2 on March 27, 2005, 07:34:05 PM
-
The Terri Schiavo case has drawn a lot of attention to euthanasia lately. There is an aspect of euthanasia/hospice that I bet most folks are unaware of; let me begin by describing my introduction to this dilemma:
As some of you know, my wife recently gave birth to our third child; she was born 11 weeks premature and luckily, is doing very well. When my wife’s water broke at 25 weeks our odds of bringing home a healthy child were dismal. For the month that my wife was in the hospital, I studied extreme prematurely extensively.
Babies that are born extremely premature have a very poor chance of survival. Before 22 weeks gestation, babies pretty much never survive. If born during the 22nd week the chance of survival is about 10%. Mother’s race, age and other factors can increase or decrease the odds. Quality of hospital and prenatal care also make a big difference. Birth weight and sex of the baby can make a big difference. Mostly it just comes down to luck; some kids are born with serious brain bleeds and don’t stand a chance while others are born with a realistic chance of survival. Each week (or day really) that the baby stays in its mother, the survival odds significantly improve.
What constitutes “survival” is the tricky part of this dilemma. A lot of these babies die in the first hours or days. Some last a few weeks or months. Even the babies that survive their initial hospital stay of a several months have a very high mortality rate during their first few years of life.
The vast majority of extremely premature survivors have serious lifelong health and quality of life problems. Cerebral Palsy, mental retardation, respiratory disease blindness, deafness, etc. are common if not likely. Many extremely premature survivors will not be able to live independently as adults.
Kids who are fortunate enough to avoid the most significant disabilities can be expected to have a host of problems such as: lower IQ, ADD, mild hearing or vision problems, poor coordination, may need special education in school, etc.
The likelihood of an extremely premature baby acquiring any of these problems also relates to exactly how premature it was born. A child born very early stands a very slight chance (at best) of going home healthy and “normal”.
So, If you have not yet figured out how this relates to euthanasia: in the US parents of 22 and 23 weekers are usually asked if they want their babies to be resuscitated or if the want to provide “Comfort Care”/”Hospice” to their babies. Most US doctors recommend not resuscitating. In Holland the national policy is to not resuscitate babies born before 25 weeks, regardless of the parents’ wishes.
If you have spent any time pondering the one in a million Terri Schiavo case, ponder this dilemma. It occurs everywhere at a surprising frequency.
eskimo
-
"Do not ressusitate" and "do not feed" are two very different things.
There are people in comas that dont need anything to keep them breathing. However, like the rest of is they need to be fed nutrients and water.
I see your point but it's kinda like apples an oranges really.
-
I see no difference between them. IF you dont resuscitate someone then you are not doing ALL you can to preserve their life. Just as letting a machine feed someone is doing all you can to preserve it.
-
I guess we're gonna outlaw bottles for babies next.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
I guess we're gonna outlaw bottles for babies next.
Yeah because people with DNR orders and those in a vegetative stay who wish for euthanasia are just like babies. right? Is that what you are saying?
-
DNR is not DNF (do not feed).
-
it is if the patient said if I get like that dont keep me alive.
-
Somone who doesnt need resusitation still needs to be fed. If you don't feed somone they ARE going to die. If somone has a DNR in their file they MIGHT die.
That is the difference.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Somone who doesnt need resusitation still needs to be fed. If you don't feed somone they ARE going to die. If somone has a DNR in their file they MIGHT die.
That is the difference.
ok
-
http://soundamerica.com/sounds/movies/S-T/Terminator/listen.wav
-
Like Eskimo said, this type of decision happens everyday. Fortunately, not all of these decisions are decided in the realm of public opinion... I'm willing to bet not a single one of you knew Terri, her husband, or any of her family (those for and against the 'pulling' of the gastric tube). I refuse to discuss this case, but only to discuss the ramifications of any decisions made that will affect the future.
What is next? "Patient #5125 isn't eating anymore, they will have to insert a feeding tube, no decisions belong to the patient or the family anymore."
This type of decision belongs with the family, associated MD involved with her care, and the State's Medical and Medical Review Board.
I'm digusted with the government regarding the Shiavo case, one party gets involved and is unwilling to allow the family to make the decision, and the other is too afraid to get involved and lose votes and doesn't show up at all to block the bill. Pathetic...
-
Originally posted by CPorky
Like Eskimo said, this type of decision happens everyday. Fortunately, not all of these decisions are decided in the realm of public opinion... I'm willing to bet not a single one of you knew Terri, her husband, or any of her family (those for and against the 'pulling' of the gastric tube). I refuse to discuss this case, but only to discuss the ramifications of any decisions made that will affect the future.
What is next? "Patient #5125 isn't eating anymore, they will have to insert a feeding tube, no decisions belong to the patient or the family anymore."
This type of decision belongs with the family, associated MD involved with her care, and the State's Medical and Medical Review Board.
I'm digusted with the government regarding the Shiavo case, one party gets involved and is unwilling to allow the family to make the decision, and the other is too afraid to get involved and lose votes and doesn't show up at all to block the bill. Pathetic...
So who is and is not family? Husband? Mom and Dad? Brother? Husbands "other" family?
-
Wow. I leave for the weekend and everyone gets so wrong.
DNR is mainly for if something happens and you could legally be declared dead. I.E. Your heart stops. Someone with a DNR order is saying, "If my heart stops, DON'T START IT AGAIN!"
Terri Schiavo was not dead. Nor was she going to die anytime soon. But they decided to murder her via starvation. It's not the same. Don't try to make it out to be the same.
-
My daughter was born at 29 weeks and had a 98% chance of survival when she was born. In spite of the fact that she was and is doing well and has a very good prognosis, she would not have survived without modern medicine. Just 50 years ago it would have been extremely unlikely that she would have survived, even in the one of the best hospitals in the nation. 100 years ago, no way would she have survived. NICUs have become very good at keeping very premature babies alive. Nowadays, even most 25 weekers survive. 100 years ago it was impossible to keep them alive.
Parents make the decision to have their extremely premature babies resuscitated, or not. Although their survival odds and quality of life may be very limited, they have a lot more going for them then Terrie Schiavo.
eskimo
-
Originally posted by eskimo2
My daughter was born at 29 weeks and had a 98% chance of survival when she was born. In spite of the fact that she was and is doing well and has a very good prognosis, she would not have survived without modern medicine. Just 50 years ago it would have been extremely unlikely that she would have survived, even in the one of the best hospitals in the nation. 100 years ago, no way would she have survived. NICUs have become very good at keeping very premature babies alive. Nowadays, even most 25 weekers survive. 100 years ago it was impossible to keep them alive.
Parents make the decision to have their extremely premature babies resuscitated, or not. Although their survival odds and quality of life may be very limited, they have a lot more going for them then Terrie Schiavo.
eskimo
Eskimo I'm glad things worked out in your case. But, IMHO I see s stark difference. If your baby wasn't doing so well OR your baby didn't have a good chance of survival/leading a fulfilling life you wouldnt have the nurses stop feeding him/her would you?
PS this is coming from a father as well.
-
The comparison is that these preemies are typically on respirators/ventilators. Some machines assist breathing, others practically replace breathing. Very often little ones have a brain bleed at birth that causes significant brain damage. (Brain bleeds are pretty common in extreme preemies.) A baby could be facing a lot of other problems as well. Some parents choose to pull their kids off of the ventilators which ultimately results in death.
As far as food goes, they all start off with an IV and feeding tube. Most of the nutrition comes from the IV at first. Gradually more and more food is introduced as they can tolerate it. I haven’t heard of pulling feeding tubes or IVs when things look relatively hopeless, just respiration assistance. (I’m certainly not an expert though, perhaps they do.)
eskimo
-
Some a**holes feel they have the right to play God. Pulling a feeding tube is no less than murder, IMO. I am Conservative by nature, but this is ridiculous. I could understand if she was on a ventilator needing artificial needs to stay alive. This is between Terri and God and noone else should be allowed to arrange the meeting.
Personally, with the "Loving husband" dating some other chick, he should divorce her, granting her parents rights to fight for her survival. Personally, this clash has roots deeper than Terri, but somehow hasn't been mentioned.
Flame me all you want. This is ALL I will say on the subject.
<>
Karaya
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Some a**holes feel they have the right to play God. Pulling a feeding tube is no less than murder, IMO. I am Conservative by nature, but this is ridiculous. I could understand if she was on a ventilator needing artificial needs to stay alive. This is between Terri and God and noone else should be allowed to arrange the meeting.
]
What is different between a ventilator and a feeding tube? I see no difference. Both are sustaining you because you can no longer keep yourself alive.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
What is different between a ventilator and a feeding tube? I see no difference.
I hope you're not a doctor.
-
Tube feedings are covered in advanced directives, aka DNR order. Nutrition is as much a life support apparatus as oxygen and breathing devices.
If this Shiavo person had stated that she wouldn't want to be kept alive like this, as her sister and two other person supposedly witnessed a long time ago, then that's that.
-
Originally posted by Suave
If this Shiavo person had stated that she wouldn't want to be kept alive like this, as her sister and two other person supposedly witnessed a long time ago, then that's that.
Unfortunately, even IF she had a Living Will, I'd bet there would still be people claiming its murder.
-
NO! DNR orders does not mean let the person die!!!!!!!!
It means if they die, do not bring them back to life!!!
-
There seems to be a lot of confusion between a DNR/DNI order and advanced directives. There is also a difference between a DNR/DNI order and withdrawal of care. All of these can have some crossover coverage and in general most of these things should be discussed and agreed to before someone becomes sick. All of these things are regulated by individual states. In some states Advanced Directives (or living wills) carry legal weight while in others they are more or less guidelines.
I have worked as an Intensive Care Unit and Emergency Room RN (in military treatment facilities). We in general follow advanced directives of patients as much as we can, although in some cases family members can overrule the wishes of the patient-creating some very big family squabbles.
DNR does not mean Do not Treat. DNR/DNI orders for one have to be issued by a physician and normally cover only the length of stay while in that individual facility. If someone has a DNR/DNI order in one facility it is NOT normally transferrable to another facility, the order has to be re-written in that facility. This may vary from state to state but every state that I have worked in (to include Florida btw) seems to follow this practice.
DNR/DNI is pretty simple. In the event of cardiac or respiratory arrest the caregivers will not perform Advanced Cardiac Life Support (ACLS) maneuvers to revive the patient. Medications to 'jump start' the heart (epinephrine and atropine) or to correct deadly heart arrythmias (lidocane or amiodarone) will generally not be given. No defibrillation or cardioversion (electrical jump starting of the heart) will be performed. Assisted breathing via an Endotracheal Tube (breathing tube) will not be performed. The patient will not be hooked to a ventilator and will not have all kinds of invasive devices (normally) put in them.
It does not say that you won't treat a patient. A DNR/DNI order does not mean that a sick patient won't get antibiotics, oxygen, IV fluids or even respiratory treatments or meds to fix heart or blood pressure problems. That is more of a withdrawal of care order, something that can be decided by a patient or by a family care members when the patient is unable to make such a decision.
Don't confuse the two, withdrawal of care is not the same as having a DNR/DNI order. I know lots of elderly people that don't want someone shocking their heart in the event of a heart attack, that doesn't mean they don't want to be fed if they end up in the hospital.
-
What the duck guy said. Patient, or power of attorney states in advanced directives if he wants to be DNR or chemical code or whatever, and the physician writes the order from that information. Tube feeding, at least in my state, is legally considered life support. That's why it's usually referenced in a persons advanced directives.
Oh, and redundant punctuation will cause you to lose your suave privledges almost as fast as typing "" will.
-
FWIW, It isn't just parents making that kind of decision. It's the kids too.
Last December my Mother had a massive stroke in her sleep. When my little Sister found her she was only semi responsive. On the way to the hospital she coded 2 times. At the hospital she coded again. The EEG showed no brain waves. The three of us kids all had a phone conferance and came to the same decision. There was nothing of our Mom left but a shell, it was time to turn off the machines and let her go. She could have been kept going indeterminately, but for what reason. We knew she hated the idea of hospitals and tubes and so on. She passed on a couple hours later.
Did I enjoy that decision? No. Was it the right one? Yes. Would I do it again? Yes.
-
Originally posted by Suave
Tube feedings are covered in advanced directives, aka DNR order. Nutrition is as much a life support apparatus as oxygen and breathing devices.
If this Shiavo person had stated that she wouldn't want to be kept alive like this, as her sister and two other person supposedly witnessed a long time ago, then that's that.
The way I read it, at least half a dozen times, it was NOT Terri Schiavo's sister who heard it, it was her husband's brother and sister. Also it has been stated that a friend of Terri and her husband heard her say it.
I find it amazing that those statements would all be considered hearsay and inadmissable were this a criminal case, but it's a civil case and they are admissable, at least supposedly they are in Florida.
I also find it very interesting that her rights to practice her religion are also not being protected. She is supposedly a devout Catholic. Not that I agree with Catholicism, but it is HER religion of choice. As a Catholic, it would be unacceptable for her to request the tube be removed (but evidently NOT unacceptable for her to sign a DNR or to declines heart/lung assistance, at least as a Catholic expalined it me). Now, considering they are "allowing" her to die, is it not odd they'd "allow" her to die under circumstances she believed would cause her to go to Hell, or at least not get into Heaven? It is after all HER soul and HER choice here. Evidently, they are violating the Catholic principles regarding burial as well. Interesting that this is supposedly (if you believe her "husband") ALL about what Terri would want, and yet directly contrary to what she evidently believed. I suppose you can make the case that it won't affect her soul and its final disposition, if it is, in fact, against her wishes and beliefs, since she's unable to control her destiny. Kind of screws up the argument about it being what she wanted though, doesn't it?
-
Got it, you think you know what she believed and her husband and the others are lying.
You could've said that without getting all cuckoo religious.
good bye
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Wow. I leave for the weekend and everyone gets so wrong.
DNR is mainly for if something happens and you could legally be declared dead. I.E. Your heart stops. Someone with a DNR order is saying, "If my heart stops, DON'T START IT AGAIN!"
Terri Schiavo was not dead. Nor was she going to die anytime soon. But they decided to murder her via starvation. It's not the same. Don't try to make it out to be the same.
Please read the timeline of her case. Then you will see that it is really about the choice of the individual ( Terri in this case ) to decide her own fate.
-
I find it amazing that those statements would all be considered hearsay and inadmissable were this a criminal case, but it's a civil case and they are admissable, at least supposedly they are in Florida.
If i'm not mistaken heresay is "Someone told me that she said that...."
and that is indeed inadmissable in most cases.
However, people testifying to hearing her say it in person, that's direct testimony and quite admissable.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
FWIW, It isn't just parents making that kind of decision. It's the kids too.
Last December my Mother had a massive stroke in her sleep. When my little Sister found her she was only semi responsive. On the way to the hospital she coded 2 times. At the hospital she coded again. The EEG showed no brain waves. The three of us kids all had a phone conferance and came to the same decision. There was nothing of our Mom left but a shell, it was time to turn off the machines and let her go. She could have been kept going indeterminately, but for what reason. We knew she hated the idea of hospitals and tubes and so on. She passed on a couple hours later.
Did I enjoy that decision? No. Was it the right one? Yes. Would I do it again? Yes.
Yeah, and I guess a few on this Bbs would contend that you're nothing but a murder because of it....:rolleyes:
and truly, Sorry for your loss....
-
Originally posted by Suave
Got it, you think you know what she believed and her husband and the others are lying.
You could've said that without getting all cuckoo religious.
good bye
Next time, READ THE POST IDIOT.
I did not get cuckoo religious. I said I'm NOT Catholic, and I don't necessarily agree with them. I said she was supposedly a devout Catholic, and what was being done was contrary to HER beliefs if she was.
Her husband screwed up on Larry King Live and said "we don't know what Terri wanted", "but this is what we want".
By the way, nearly $400,000 of the money paid to Michael Schiavo for her care has been paid to the attorney Michael hired to make sure she died.
Oh, and the judge in the case, judge Greer, recieved campaign donations from that same attorney.
-
Originally posted by Red Tail 444
Yeah, and I guess a few on this Bbs would contend that you're nothing but a murder because of it....:rolleyes:
and truly, Sorry for your loss....
:rofl :rofl :rofl
It's really funny how you compare apples to horse turds.
Maverick's case is not even close to the Schiavo case.
-
Originally posted by fd ski
If i'm not mistaken heresay is "Someone told me that she said that...."
and that is indeed inadmissable in most cases.
However, people testifying to hearing her say it in person, that's direct testimony and quite admissable.
That is NOT the case with U.S. law. For example, I have a friend who was murdered by her boyfriend. A while before it happened, said boyfriend beat her and broke a couple of teeth. She told her mother what happened. At the pre trial hearing held 3 years ago (the murder happened in 1984, he was caught in 2001, the trial has not been held yet), the judge ruled that her mother COULD NOT testify to what the victim told her, on the grounds it was hearsay evidence. However, last year (he STILL has not been tried) the state supreme court ruled that the testimony was admissable, under the excited utterence exception rule. This means that while the testimony is in fact HEARSAY, it is admissable because the witness heard the victim say it under special circumstances.
So, in order for what Terri supposedly said, and her husband and his relatives supposedly heard, to be admissable, it would have to be an "excited utterance".
-
Originally posted by Suave
...You could've said that without getting all cuckoo religious.
good bye
Funny old world isn't it? It's perfectly sane and reasonable to believe in UFO abductions, intelligent life on other planets, reincarnation, trilaterialism, transitional life form fossils (although we haven't yet found any), transcendental meditation, ESP, the big bang, and of course Euthanizing people, but the moment one starts talking about building one's worldview on a document with well over 2000 years of attestation and of which we have more reliable copies than any other ancient document, one has become "Cuckoo religious". Not that I'm anyone to point fingers, I used to do exactly the same thing. That is till I left the sane world of voluntary and involuntary Euthanasia on demand and went absolutely cuckoo myself...
Hand Carved in Bavaria from the finest walnut and appearing on the hour, I remain, Seagoon
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
The way I read it, at least half a dozen times, it was NOT Terri Schiavo's sister who heard it, it was her husband's brother and sister. Also it has been stated that a friend of Terri and her husband heard her say it.
?
Actually it was her uncle, her brother in law, and her best friend at the time. I posted the links and the quotes in another thread but dont feel like looking for them being as it was about the 8th time I posted it.
-
Hello Raider,
Here is a quote for you: "...a friend of Schiavo's, Diane Meyer, testified about a statement Schiavo made to her concerning Quinlan.
Quinlan's parents persuaded the New Jersey Supreme Court to order their daughter off a ventilator in 1976, though she remained on a feeding tube.
Meyer said she joked about Quinlan to Terri Schiavo in the summer of 1982 after seeing a movie about the case on television. Meyer said the joke was in bad taste and upset Schiavo, then 19. Meyer said Schiavo told her "she did not approve of what happened. What the parents are doing" to Quinlan, transcripts state."
There are others who testify that the statements Michael remembered 7 years into his fight to cause her to die conflict with statements Terri made.
The idea that whether or not a person should be starved to death should be finally determined by anecdotal evidence from highly interested parties either way is absurd. The fact is that there was no living will from Terri and no other irrefutable "I wish to be Euthanized" statements. Michael's supporters say "she wanted to die" and the Euthanasia lobby supports them, Terri's parents say "she wants to live" and the anti-euthanasia lobby supports them. This isn't really too far removed from "who thinks she should die? "
The critical question in all cases of taking human life is not what parents want, or husbands want, or even what the individual in question wants but whether ethically it should be allowed.
For instance, let us suppose that someone were deranged enough to put out a contract for a hit on themselves, would it be murder only if the hit man assumed that someone else was paying them to kill the target? Would a court case in order to prove murder have to show beyond any doubt that the killer didn't know the target wished to die? Or does human life have an inherent value that must be protected regardless of what the killer and victim believe? I fear that while we once were able to answer that question fairly unambiguously we are getting to the point where the mass suicide at Jonestown ceases to be inherently evil and becomes "a right-to-die decision acted on en masse."
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum Some a**holes feel they have the right to play God. Pulling a feeding tube is no less than murder, IMO.
If humans had not played God she would have died 15 years ago.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Hello Raider,
Here is a quote for you: "...a friend of Schiavo's, Diane Meyer, testified about a statement Schiavo made to her concerning Quinlan.
Quinlan's parents persuaded the New Jersey Supreme Court to order their daughter off a ventilator in 1976, though she remained on a feeding tube.
Meyer said she joked about Quinlan to Terri Schiavo in the summer of 1982 after seeing a movie about the case on television. Meyer said the joke was in bad taste and upset Schiavo, then 19. Meyer said Schiavo told her "she did not approve of what happened. What the parents are doing" to Quinlan, transcripts state."
There are others who testify that the statements Michael remembered 7 years into his fight to cause her to die conflict with statements Terri made.
The idea that whether or not a person should be starved to death should be finally determined by anecdotal evidence from highly interested parties either way is absurd. The fact is that there was no living will from Terri and no other irrefutable "I wish to be Euthanized" statements. Michael's supporters say "she wanted to die" and the Euthanasia lobby supports them, Terri's parents say "she wants to live" and the anti-euthanasia lobby supports them. This isn't really too far removed from "who thinks she should die? "
The critical question in all cases of taking human life is not what parents want, or husbands want, or even what the individual in question wants but whether ethically it should be allowed.
For instance, let us suppose that someone were deranged enough to put out a contract for a hit on themselves, would it be murder only if the hit man assumed that someone else was paying them to kill the target? Would a court case in order to prove murder have to show beyond any doubt that the killer didn't know the target wished to die? Or does human life have an inherent value that must be protected regardless of what the killer and victim believe? I fear that while we once were able to answer that question fairly unambiguously we are getting to the point where the mass suicide at Jonestown ceases to be inherently evil and becomes "a right-to-die decision acted on en masse."
- SEAGOON
SG,
See I saw the same quote but it went more of the " I would never want to be like that. No Tubes for me..." Got a link?
Felos also said Terri Schiavo told her best friend, brother-in-law and uncle that she would never want to be kept alive in this type of scenario.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/21/schiavo/index.html
I remember seeing her husband invite president bush and Jeb to come visit her but I guess they were too busy to do anything other than grab some free press.
As for these others you mention I have seen no evidence of them anywhere...Even her own parents dont go as far as to say that. They just say it goes against her religion. See this quote Its from the parents website
Does Terri have an advanced directive or any wishes about her healthcare?
Terri never signed any directive or living will and there is no evidence that she foresaw her present situation
The parents say NO EVIDENCE. They dont say there are some people who say she said the opposite. I would think if there were some they would be all over the news and the parents website.
http://www.terrisfight.org/
Sorry but I totally disagree on the part about who's choice it is. It is the individuals choice when to call it quits. Whether en masse at Jonestown or quietly in one's own house. Why force someone to live that doesn't want to? Give me one good reason. I for one can see how someone can be in so much pain or drudgery that their life no longer is by any means enjoyable and becomes rather horrible. The only case I might say intervene would be severe depression. That is curable and the person can go on to having a normal life.(or anything that fits that condition)
btw I know we see opposites of most issues but just wanted to tell you I think you are wise and offer very good points with no animosity ever detected in your posts.
-
Raider, I feel the same way. But if it is not clearly spelled out in a document, you should not just kill the person.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Raider, I feel the same way. But if it is not clearly spelled out in a document, you should not just kill the person.
Maybe its because I dont think one is required. I don't see it as killing them either. Its letting them die not killing them. She was 26 when it happened to her, how many 26 year olds do you think have a living will? I would guess maybe half a half a half a percent. If even that many. Does that mean we shouldn't abide by her wishes? Not in my book.
-
So you have a person who's been sitting in a basically vegatative state in a bed for 15 years, and people actually want to CONTINUE that?
That's not "mercy". That's not "life". That's torture. Only in a screwed up society such as ours could that even be allowed to continue for so long!
The only entity which benefits is the hospital. The medical industry LOVES wringing as much money as it can out of sick and dying people who are artifically kept alive. It's a sick, sick industry.
But I guess torture and pain is perfectly acceptable as long as: a) it happens to someone else, and b) it prevents weak-minded people from having to confront their own issues with morality. Out of sight out of mind, as they say.
On a different note, the fact that this woman is Catholic doesn't mean much. I'm Catholic. Extremely few Catholics actually practice what their religion preaches. The few who do....usually live in a fantasy world (such as a relative of mine who refuses to believe in the existance of Alzheimers because it conflicts with her religious beliefs). I get that a lot from religious people, actually--a refusal to believe/cope with anything they don't like.
J_A_B
-
would it make any difference whatsoever if it was the parents who heard her say it, and not her husband?
-
Originally posted by Raider179
SG,
See I saw the same quote but it went more of the " I would never want to be like that. No Tubes for me..." Got a link?
Hi Raider, It's all rather a moot point now, but: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43142
Actually the testimony as to her wishes fell out the way one would expect, her family and friends maintain she would have wanted to live, his family and friends maintain that she would have wanted to die. There was no incontrovertible proof either way, and obviously one has to weigh the testimony of directly interested parties in the case of hearsay evidence. In fact in most cases, it is usually dismissed and I believe that is wise, regardless of whom it favors.
Felos also said Terri Schiavo told her best friend, brother-in-law and uncle that she would never want to be kept alive in this type of scenario.
George Felos is the director of Florida Right to Die, and has apparently claimed the ability to look into someones eyes and know whether they want to die or not. My guess is that George would "be able to tell" that my wife and I wanted to die if we fell into a coma, despite the fact that we are both on record as saying that suicide and euthanasia are violations of the 6th commandment.
Cindy Shook, Michael Schiavo's ex-girlfriend ('91-'92) testified under oath that Michael had said that he was being robbed of a normal life and regarding whether Terri wanted to die she said he yelled "How the hell should I know we never spoke about this, my God I was only 25 years old. How the hell should I know? We were young. We never spoke of this."
http://www.zimp.org/stuff/06%20-%20CindyShookDepo.htm
Sorry but I totally disagree on the part about who's choice it is. It is the individuals choice when to call it quits. Whether en masse at Jonestown or quietly in one's own house. Why force someone to live that doesn't want to? Give me one good reason.
Only one good reason? Please forgive me if I go ahead and give several:
1) Euthanasia is a bottomless pit, historically once we conclude that someone can be caused to die for "quality of life" or "utility" reasons, there is a gradual transition from "may" to "must." People in these situations have testified to feeling pressure from both doctors and loved ones, to "do the right thing" and move along by simply dying rather than hanging around and using up resources. Inevitably, once the principle is in place, states begin to take matters into their own hands. Doctors are forced to act in one case as "healer" and in another as "executioner" and eventually the state begins to take a very dim view of allowing the "useless eaters" to hang around regardless of what they want. Parents, for instance, are initially told that the right thing to do with their severely handicapped newborn is to "allow them to die" rather than going through countless costly, painful, and quite possibly ineffective surgeries. Eventually in state managed medical systems the cost to benefit ratio is simply judged to be too high (which is currently the developing situation in the Netherlands) and parents are simply told, we are not going to do this surgery. And their children (or aged parents) are moved to DNF status.
2) Aside from the fact that the Bible teaches that lives have an inherent rather than a merely instrumental value, man simply does not know that the life he condemns as "worthless" will never amount to anything. One of the fellows I went to seminary with, Paul Sweeny, [ Paul is spoken of in this Time Magazine Article (http://205.188.238.109/time/archive/preview/0,10987,151643,00.html) ] was born with severe birth defects and his parents were advised by doctors to allow them to put a "Do Not Feed" sign on his incubator and wheel him into a corner. C. Everet Koop intervened and did most of his 33 surgeries free of charge. Today, Paul who is still visibly deformed, has finished college and graduated seminary, I don't know for certain but he has probably gone on to a ministry call somewhere.
3) The Bard, in Hamlet sums up the two greatest compelling reasons for not engaging in Euthanasia or suicide no matter how much we may want to:
A) "O, that this too too solid flesh would melt Thaw and resolve itself into a dew! Or that the Everlasting had not fix'd His canon 'gainst self-slaughter!"
Shakespeare is correct, the bible unequivocally condemns suicide, stating that we are his creatures, and that he alone has the right to end the lives he gifts us with.
B) "To be, or not to be: that is the question: Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep; no more; and by a sleep to say we end The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks That flesh is heir to, 'tis a consummation Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep; To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub; For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil, Must give us pause: there's the respect That makes calamity of so long life; For who would bear the whips and scorns of time, The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely, The pangs of despised love, the law's delay, The insolence of office and the spurns That patient merit of the unworthy takes, When he himself might his quietus make With a bare bodkin? who would fardels bear, To grunt and sweat under a weary life, But that the dread of something after death, The undiscover'd country from whose bourn No traveller returns, puzzles the will And makes us rather bear those ills we have Than fly to others that we know not of? Thus conscience does make cowards of us all;"
The idea that drives most Suicides on is that by dying there will be an end to pain, suffering, their current woes, in a word that after life there is nothing. For most right-to-die advocates death is the constant, and life the momentary blip, there is nothing that follows in its train. The existentialist believes that existence precedes essence, and once life is ended, essence is gone. But the Christian knows as Hamlet summed up, that death doesn't end existence, that humans are both soul and body, and that just as there is a heaven for the forgiven there is a real hell for the reprobate, and thus he hesitates to hurry on knowing that there will be an eternal accounting.
btw I know we see opposites of most issues but just wanted to tell you I think you are wise and offer very good points with no animosity ever detected in your posts.
Thank you Raider. I do sincerely appreciate the fact that you read and think through points and respond rather than firing off knee jerk ad hominems, or simply going with your gut.
Incidentally, and I really mean this, if you do ever detect animus, vitriol, or an unwarranted personal attack, in my posts please confront me on it. I am called to live according to the Golden Rule and observing the command to "Repay no one evil for evil. Have regard for good things in the sight of all men. If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men." As a sinner, I can and I do fail in this respect, but I hope when I am confronted with that, that I will repent and apologize.
- SEAGOON