Tough, tough issue…
Politicians, courts must allow husband to make final decision. This is a very well written article by a Bio Ethist on a very, tough subject.
I think it’s terrible what Congress is trying to do.
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| That is why Michael Schiavo, despite all the hatred that is now directed against him, has the right to decide his wife’s fate. The decision about Terri’s life does not belong to the U.S. Congress, President Bush, Rep. Tom Delay of Texas, Florida Governor Jeb Bush, the Florida Legislature, clerics in Rome, self-proclaimed disability activists, Operation Rescue founder Randall Terry, conservative commentators, bioethicists or Terri’s parents. The decision is Michael’s and Michael’s alone. |
You might want to have a look at the videos on this web-site before say say anything else about killing Terri.
She is far from the vegetative state that everyone seems to think she is in.
*** I’m pulling the plug on this part of the discussion ***
John is right on that on Mike. Vegetative state doesn’t mean she’s in a coma. She’s awake and even seems sort of alert for the most part, though by alert that doesn’t mean she understands anything going on around her. She reacts, looks around, responds to sounds. All of that could be nothing more than purely physical responses, which is what the doctors are saying. I feel very uncomfortable with putting her in the same class as brain dead, which is what many folks think she is.
Again, did you guys read the article - probably not?
No one is saying that a vegetative state is the same as in a coma. John & the web site is saying that she is NOT in vegetative state, and therefore should not be allowed to perish. Please re-read what he said.
| Quote (Mr Soul @ Mar. 18 2005,16:05) |
| It just amazes me how gullible & reactionary you are. |
Look here fvcknut... State your case all you want, but you didn't have to start in with the name calling.
Didn't think you could keep up you good boy act for long.
*** I’m pulling the plug on this part of the discussion ***
I think I would have to consider quality of life here. Would I want to live if I was unable to care for myself? Unable to do the things I enjoy? Granted this woman is unable to make the decision for herself. So someone else is forced to make some very hard choices on her behalf.
I do agree that the government has made a freak show out of what should have been a very personal matter and the moral majority needs to butt out of personal matters.
IMO - Who is this womans guardian/decision maker - That person must make attempt to place himself in her position and make a decision based on her best interests - and bear the pain and responsibility of doing so.
Furtively checks the room and runs for it
.-=/gp=-.
No one is saying that a vegetative state is the same as in a coma.
Many folks think the two go hand in hand. John's statement "She is *far* from the vegetative state that everyone seems to think she is in." is exactly what I'm agreeing with and point out. It's all too easy to say "pull the plug and let her go" when you don't see the difference.
John & the web site is saying that she is NOT in vegetative state, and therefore should not be allowed to perish. Please re-read what he said.
And again that's also what I'm agreeing with.
That said, ironically, I believe the court did the right thing. The decision in this case should be left up to the husband. As distasteful as it may be. God will take her when it's her time to go.
I suppose I'll be accused of not taking a stand since I think she should be allowed to live (leave the tubes in) but the decision should not be mine to make (take the tubes out).
I've just gone through a similar situation with my mother-in-law. She has a stroke over a year ago and lost part of her speech, but it was obvious to most that she was failing fast in other ways. She became mostly unresponsive around Dec 9th, 2004, and was put in the hospital.
We thought it was another stroke, but the doctors found a very aggressive brain tumor. It had advanced to covering 95% of her brain. While she was in a coma for the most part she would respond to spoken words in small ways ("Can you move you fingers?" She would move her fingers.). She was moved to hospice, complete with a feeding tube and all that.
We were faced with the same kind of decision. She could stay in that state for hours, days, weeks or months. We didn't know how long she would last, but we knew she did not want to be kept alive that way. There was no doubt in our minds.
The decision to remove the feeding tubes was done by my wife's father. They were removed on Friday and she was gone the next morning.
The funeral was Dec 23rd. There was no Christmas this year.
My thought about how this relates? "How dare anyone try take away our dad's right to make that decision!" That was his wife of over 50 years. If those folks in Florida were to get there way then he may not be allowed to do what he and everyone else knew was the right decision.
I don't know how that man in Florida can make the decision to have the tubes pulled knowing the state I understand her to be in, but I don't REALLY know and more importantly I don't know her, so there's no way for me to know her thoughts.
Were the woman's family saying she wanted to live that way for years? I don't think so.
Our situation may seem much more cut and dry, but the decision was equally difficult. We'd have been equally as supportive if dad had left the tubes in. God knows what to do in either situation.
Many folks think the two go hand in hand. John's statement "She is *far* from the vegetative state that everyone seems to think she is in." is exactly what I'm agreeing with and point out. It's all too easy to say "pull the plug and let her go" when you don't see the difference.
John & the web site is saying that she is NOT in vegetative state, and therefore should not be allowed to perish. Please re-read what he said.
And again that's also what I'm agreeing with.
That said, ironically, I believe the court did the right thing. The decision in this case should be left up to the husband. As distasteful as it may be. God will take her when it's her time to go.
I suppose I'll be accused of not taking a stand since I think she should be allowed to live (leave the tubes in) but the decision should not be mine to make (take the tubes out).
I've just gone through a similar situation with my mother-in-law. She has a stroke over a year ago and lost part of her speech, but it was obvious to most that she was failing fast in other ways. She became mostly unresponsive around Dec 9th, 2004, and was put in the hospital.
We thought it was another stroke, but the doctors found a very aggressive brain tumor. It had advanced to covering 95% of her brain. While she was in a coma for the most part she would respond to spoken words in small ways ("Can you move you fingers?" She would move her fingers.). She was moved to hospice, complete with a feeding tube and all that.
We were faced with the same kind of decision. She could stay in that state for hours, days, weeks or months. We didn't know how long she would last, but we knew she did not want to be kept alive that way. There was no doubt in our minds.
The decision to remove the feeding tubes was done by my wife's father. They were removed on Friday and she was gone the next morning.
The funeral was Dec 23rd. There was no Christmas this year.
My thought about how this relates? "How dare anyone try take away our dad's right to make that decision!" That was his wife of over 50 years. If those folks in Florida were to get there way then he may not be allowed to do what he and everyone else knew was the right decision.
I don't know how that man in Florida can make the decision to have the tubes pulled knowing the state I understand her to be in, but I don't REALLY know and more importantly I don't know her, so there's no way for me to know her thoughts.
Were the woman's family saying she wanted to live that way for years? I don't think so.
Our situation may seem much more cut and dry, but the decision was equally difficult. We'd have been equally as supportive if dad had left the tubes in. God knows what to do in either situation.
John's statement "She is *far* from the vegetative state that everyone seems to think she is in." is exactly what I'm agreeing with and point out.
Understood but this is exactly what I don't understand about you guys? There's no credible evidence to support your position, and please don't tell me that it is on some web site. Taking your position completely overlooks the diagnosis of "permanent vegetative state"? This has real medical meaning. To have your position is to say that her doctor is wrong, and her husband is wrong, and the courts are wrong? Phoo - isnt' this matter of the husband, like the electing a governor in WA was the matter of the people who live there?
Now the Republicans are trying to politicize this whole thing. IMO - this whole thing is clouded by emotion & irrationality. I hate to say it but there are many religious types that are making the argument for this poor woman, when they have no business doing so.
Please read the article - it's very good, which is why I posted it in the first place.
By the way, I frequent alt.guitar.amps & I have very involved discussions with people over there that are much more "intense" then here. I frequently combat this guy John Wheaton, a very bright & knowledgable person. This is what he said about me the other day:
P.S. Believe it or not, I like you, and I do appreciate the heart that you put into your posts. It`s obvious how much you care, and that`s a very good thing. There are some that post here just to be argumentative, you are NOT one of them. :0)
Now when I post over here (same kind of stuff), I get crap like you're not being a nice guy, etc., etc., etc.
Understood but this is exactly what I don't understand about you guys? There's no credible evidence to support your position, and please don't tell me that it is on some web site. Taking your position completely overlooks the diagnosis of "permanent vegetative state"? This has real medical meaning. To have your position is to say that her doctor is wrong, and her husband is wrong, and the courts are wrong? Phoo - isnt' this matter of the husband, like the electing a governor in WA was the matter of the people who live there?
Now the Republicans are trying to politicize this whole thing. IMO - this whole thing is clouded by emotion & irrationality. I hate to say it but there are many religious types that are making the argument for this poor woman, when they have no business doing so.
Please read the article - it's very good, which is why I posted it in the first place.
By the way, I frequent alt.guitar.amps & I have very involved discussions with people over there that are much more "intense" then here. I frequently combat this guy John Wheaton, a very bright & knowledgable person. This is what he said about me the other day:
P.S. Believe it or not, I like you, and I do appreciate the heart that you put into your posts. It`s obvious how much you care, and that`s a very good thing. There are some that post here just to be argumentative, you are NOT one of them. :0)
Now when I post over here (same kind of stuff), I get crap like you're not being a nice guy, etc., etc., etc.
Please read the article - it's very good, which is why I posted it in the first place.
This is what I don't get about you, Mike. I had already read the article before you ever posted it here, yet in spite of the fact that I ultimately share your point of view (it's the husband's decision), you think I haven't read that article because I disagree with some other part.
It's not a cut and dried case. I've been following it more closely recently because of my personal situation.
What about those folks that magically wake up after being in comas for years? The doctors can't explain that. Yes, doctors can be wrong sometimes. Are they wrong this time? I don't know. I doubt it. Did I say they were wrong? No. I said she wasn't in a coma like most folks think she is.
You go read what I posted again. Obviously you haven't. Why do you make muck out of eveything?
This is what I don't get about you, Mike. I had already read the article before you ever posted it here, yet in spite of the fact that I ultimately share your point of view (it's the husband's decision), you think I haven't read that article because I disagree with some other part.
It's not a cut and dried case. I've been following it more closely recently because of my personal situation.
What about those folks that magically wake up after being in comas for years? The doctors can't explain that. Yes, doctors can be wrong sometimes. Are they wrong this time? I don't know. I doubt it. Did I say they were wrong? No. I said she wasn't in a coma like most folks think she is.
You go read what I posted again. Obviously you haven't. Why do you make muck out of eveything?
It’s his job phoo, mucking things up, he lives in california for pete’s sake! 
This is what I don't get about you, Mike. I had already read the article before you ever posted it here, yet in spite of the fact that I ultimately share your point of view (it's the husband's decision), you think I haven't read that article because I disagree with some other part.?
You made no reference to the article in your first post, so how could I assume you'd read it???
It's not a cut and dried case.
It's cut & dry as far as the courts are concerned, and in the past the courts have always had the final say. This case has been ligitated over & over again. 12 independent doctors have all said that she is in a "permanent vegetative state". What is it about this that you don't agree with or understand?
What about those folks that magically wake up after being in comas for years? The doctors can't explain that.[QUOTE]
If Terri was in a coma, no one would be removing her feeding tube.
[QUOTE]You go read what I posted again. Obviously you haven't. Why do you make muck out of eveything
On the contrary, it's you guys that typically make muck of what I'm trying to say; however you are usually more thoughtful, more detailed & more accurate than most others here.
In this case, you cannot support the notion that Terri is "far from being in a permanent vegetative state" because you have absolutely nothing to support this claim. And in fact, 12 doctors & numerous courts have disagreed with you.
Thanks for at least agreeing that it's the husband's right tod decide.
You made no reference to the article in your first post, so how could I assume you'd read it???
It's not a cut and dried case.
It's cut & dry as far as the courts are concerned, and in the past the courts have always had the final say. This case has been ligitated over & over again. 12 independent doctors have all said that she is in a "permanent vegetative state". What is it about this that you don't agree with or understand?
What about those folks that magically wake up after being in comas for years? The doctors can't explain that.[QUOTE]
If Terri was in a coma, no one would be removing her feeding tube.
[QUOTE]You go read what I posted again. Obviously you haven't. Why do you make muck out of eveything
On the contrary, it's you guys that typically make muck of what I'm trying to say; however you are usually more thoughtful, more detailed & more accurate than most others here.
In this case, you cannot support the notion that Terri is "far from being in a permanent vegetative state" because you have absolutely nothing to support this claim. And in fact, 12 doctors & numerous courts have disagreed with you.
Thanks for at least agreeing that it's the husband's right tod decide.
| Quote (Mr Soul @ Mar. 19 2005,11:35) |
| On the contrary, it's you guys that typically make muck of what I'm trying to say; however you are usually more thoughtful, more detailed & more accurate than most others here. |
And you dare say that *I* take the cake? Are you even capable of having a debate without resorting to playing the victim ("Everybody is picking on me!") and making ad hominem attacks? Please try to find another tactic; your current one is so predictable. In fact your next step is to play Mr. Innocent and make the online-forum-debate equivalent of puppy-dog-eyes.
Sheesh.
As for Terri... The videos that I saw clearly show that she is able to respond to stimuli, most people are under the assumption that she is just a piece of meat with no brain activity being that was kept alive by machines. This is (was) not the case. It’s not a matter of disconnecting her breathing tube and letting her body die. Her body doesn’t want to die; you have to kill her by starving her to death, which takes take 7-10 days.
Answer me these:
How much brain function and reaction to stimuli does it take for one *not* to be starved to death?
What is the baseline qualification for a life to be considered viable by the state?
And most importantly... *Who* will eventually have the power to decide exactly what that baseline is?!? Don't forget that Adolf started his Holocaust with the "Mercy Killings" of the mentally incompetent and feeble.
That said... I don't think that I would want to live if I were in her condition. But then again, I've never been in her condition, so I don't know. Maybe if I were like her, I would be clinging to every sweet breath and flash of light that sparked my neurons, not wanting to die.
Or I might be silently screaming for someone to please kill me.
Ya never know till your there yourself.
*** I’m pulling the plug on this part of the discussion ***
John obviously didn’t read it, as I obviousoly didn’t read it, because of why?
I don’t think it takes much to have the opinion that it’s wrong to allow someone to die of starvation when that person can still turn her head and look toward the person talking to them. I don’t care what the doctors say. That’s my opinion.
Other issues aside, I think the article poses a very salient question: If we are to value the sanctity of marriage, how can we deny Michael Schiavo the right to make this decision?
Marriage is not merely a contract in law, it is a covenant between two people in which they are presumed to be “as one”. By its actions, the congress is doing more harm to the definition of marriage than the issue of same-sex marriage ever could.
I don't think it takes much to have the opinion that it's wrong to allow someone to die of starvation when that person can still turn her head and look toward the person talking to them. I don't care what the doctors say. That's my opinion.
I have no problem with this statement, now you've identified it as your opinion. However, you are insinuating that if someone doesn't agree with this opinion that they don't have much going for them. It seems like you guys do the same thing that you accuse me of most of the time?
However, we don't operate in this country on opinion, we operate on laws & courts. IMO - Al Gore won the 2000 election but my opinion doesn't make jack. And my opinion about whether or not Terri can react to people doesn't mean jack because I'm not a doctor, nor am I am expert.
My main point is that the article is very well thought out & written. What the politicians did on Friday is outrageous IMO. They will continue to try to stop this because it's a moral crusade that they are fighting, not a rational, lawful one.
Bill - I agree with you & that's basically what the article I cited said.
I have no problem with this statement, now you've identified it as your opinion. However, you are insinuating that if someone doesn't agree with this opinion that they don't have much going for them. It seems like you guys do the same thing that you accuse me of most of the time?
However, we don't operate in this country on opinion, we operate on laws & courts. IMO - Al Gore won the 2000 election but my opinion doesn't make jack. And my opinion about whether or not Terri can react to people doesn't mean jack because I'm not a doctor, nor am I am expert.
My main point is that the article is very well thought out & written. What the politicians did on Friday is outrageous IMO. They will continue to try to stop this because it's a moral crusade that they are fighting, not a rational, lawful one.
Bill - I agree with you & that's basically what the article I cited said.