I meant, wouldn’t the administration of drugs that would arrest heartbeat still be considered euthanasia, as she’s already dead?
Thank you, Doctor J, for answering that question for me.
Quality of life is impossible to define, and impossible to “enforce”. Clearly, Terri’s parents believe she has enough quality of life to justify her continued existence- and who’s to tell them they’re wrong? Every day I take care of patients who are suffering, will continue to suffer, and have little or no hope of ever not suffering.
The denial many families exhibit is downright breathtaking. Their ability to cling to hope would be admirable if it wasn’t to sad. And you know what? I might just act and feel the same way if I’m ever in that situation. If it was my son lying there, I’d be desperate to believe he would somehow, someday recover.
The only thing that’s slightly unusual about Terri’s case is that her legal next of kin and her kin disagree about her condition and what should be done with her. Incidentally, how could any of that money possibly be left after 13 years? If her husband doesn’t want the liability of keeping her alive, why doesn’t he just divorce her and turn her fate over to her parents?
Maybe he wants her to die because he really does care about her, and he truly believes he’s following her wishes?
Anduril, Terri isn’t legally dead. Legally, brain death includes the complete absence of blood flow to the brain, complete absence of brain activity, and complete absence of reflexes. For this reason, euthanasia is especially unwarranted in cases of brain death. Simply take away the ventilator, and the patient won’t draw a single breath.
** I’ll do it.
** But do they want to continue living? Presumably, the answer is ‘yes’. Terri isn’t even capable of suffering any more – there is no ‘Terri’. Terri the person is gone, even though parts of her body remain alive.
It’s one thing to empathize with Terri’s parents, but it’s quite another to allow that empathy to interefere with reason. Their grief and desperation don’t make their claims any more valid, nor does it justify their actions in any reasonable sense.
TVAA:
Trust me: they won’t listen.
Not necessarily. Most of my patients never discussed the matter with their families. Very few put their wishes in writing. Even when they have made their wishes clear, family members often ignore them. “He said he’d never want to be kept alive by machines, but if there’s any chance he might recover, we’re going to do everything possible,” and so on. If people didn’t have conflicts over this very issue every single day, our Ethics Committee would be out of work.
If her continued existence isn’t hurting her (she’s no more aware of suffering than a worm is aware that he’s been impaled by a fishhook) then why not let her parents keep her alive?
What about people who are born “gone”? For example, think about a child who is born with severe mental and physical disabilities to the point where all he is capable of doing is laying around and drooling. He has no quality of life, yet he is not suffering.
His parents, however, love him and provide for his every physical need. His existence has meaning for them. If we made a blanket statement that all such individuals should be euthanized or allowed to die, I bet a whole lotta people would protest.
Similarly, Terri’s life has meaning, if not for her, then for others. Isn’t this enough to justify her parents’ actions? The meaning of life is an intensely personal opinion.
It’s very easy for an able-bodied person to say, “I would rather die than be a quadriplegic”. Yet most quadriplegics do find meaning in their lives and a desire to keep on living, even though they suffer enormously.
How do we determine which lives have meaning, which are worth saving, and which are not? Personally, I have no clue.
Does that matter?
** Which is precisely why family should not have the right to overrule the patient’s prior decisions.
** Fine. Let them pay for it.
** What about him? If someone’s willing to pay money to keep that body alive, so be it. If not, there’s no reason to do so.
** Then they can pay for his support.
** Precisely, which is exactly why it cannot be taken into account when policy decisions are being made.
If Terri’s parents wish to delude themselves that their daughter is still alive in some meaningful sense, they can pay to have her moved to a private hospital where her body can be taken care of.
** But quadriplegics’ minds aren’t affected. They can decide for themselves whether their lives are meaningful. In this case, there is no person whose life can be said to have meaning.
There’s no question in this case: there is no human life at risk. The only issue is whether a mindless body will continue to function.
I think all avenues to help this woman should be tried before removing the tubes.
I think the point is that there’s nothing to be done. The woman, as far as doctors can determine, died back 13 years ago. You can help the body in some ways, but there’s no “person” to help. Anything that we would recognize as a thinking, feeling being is gone, there are no procedures that will change that.
In this case, there is no definitive record of the patient’s wishes. We don’t know for sure that Terri ever expressed a desire not to be kept alive by artificial means. I’m not sure that I completely buy that her husband is sincere in his concern for her, otherwise I would agree with letting nature take its course.
Terri’s parents have offered not only to pay for the costs of her care, but also have offered to repay her husband as well - if he will only sign over guardianship to them. They have been fighting in the courts for the right to do just that. As it stands they have no legal right to have any input into her care. Her husband has done his utmost to keep them from contact with her. Even in what may come to be her last days, he has fought to keep them from visiting with her unless he or one of his attorneys is present.
It’s not that I don’t sympathize with those who advocate the right-to-die platform. I watched my own grandmother be kept alive and resuscitated time and again over the course of thirteen years. I often wished that the family members in charge of her care would just let her go. When she finally passed two years ago there was as much relief as there was grief. However in this particular case I just don’t think all the facts have come to light.
Agreed, she probably has absolutely zero chance for recovery as it is, but how do we know for sure that if given the chance for therapy earlier she would be in the same state?
Agreed, there is no marked response or reaction that would indicate she feels pleasure or pain, but how do we really know? Just because the body cannot express it does not mean it isn’t felt. To the best of my understanding, we still have no definitve way of determining when someone is experiencing pain. We can measure blood pressure, heart rate, breathing, etc. but no single measure can tell us what kind of pain or how intense. It’s still quite a strange phenomenon.
I guess I just don’t feel comfortable saying that they’ve done all they can for her. And I don’t like the idea of saying that because we deem her life to have no quality that she sould therefore be subjected to death by starvation. It doesn’t sit well with me, and it appalls me that some can look at this case and say that death is the best of all the options available.
Oh gee, I’m supposed to feel compasion for Timothy Mcveigh’s parents because he wasn’t made to suffer?
Please.
You’re talking about someone who took no small degree of pleasure in blowing infants and children to hamburger and has never showed even the smallest or slightest semblence of anything resembling regret for having done so.
He should have been stoned to death.
He got off WAY too easy.
Mr. Evil Breakfast: Thank you for that scintallating and informative opinion. It was truly on-point to what we are discussing here. Go away now and start a Pit thread on McVeigh if you feel so motivated.
XJETGIRLX, it sounds like you and I have similar experiences with grandparents. But it also sounds like we have developed opposite preferences based on those experiences.
Actually, I’m slightly confused by your last post. You seem to be conceding that her chances of recovery are gone. Yet you also seem to be expressing a preference for keeping her alive based on the fact that if her initial care had been different, then there might be a possibility of improvement now. Am I mischaracterizing you? If so, I apologize.
If I did characterize your position correctly, then I think we have a real disagreement. I also don’t think there’s any way to bridge that gap, but I understand your reasons for your position.
Can you provide objective cites for any of this?
I’m not a doctor either, but pain functions in a specific way. If the brain can’t process it, you can’t feel it. Could there be any POSSIBLE way this woman could feel pain? From the little I know, I don’t think so. In any case, it seems the doctors have said she can’t feel it, and they would know better than I.
Oh, another thing I meant to add- where’s the consideration for Mr. Schiavo here? The only strikes I’m seeing against him at the moment are apparently baseless allegetions of greed and abuse leveled against him by Terri Schiavo’s parents, who I’m not inclined to think are the most rational people out there. It’s inhuman for the Schindler’s to watch their daughter die, but it’s alright to keep this guy hanging on with his wife on life support in a hospital for 13 years? I don’t see their suffering as outweighing his, and their only claim to the contrary is that he’s attempted to get on with his life in the intervening decade-plus. (Saying he doesn’t care, in my opinion, is just absurd- if he didn’t care, he’d have given up years ago.)
A federal lawsuit was filed by the parents along with affadavits from Terri’s former caregivers regarding allegations of abuse and the lack of treatment received.
From an article detailing the lawsuit:
As to the question of the malpractice trial, I know this is not an unbiased source, but I could not find transcripts of the trial elsewhere. From the Schindler’s website, an overview of the malpractice trial, including transcripts from Michael Schiavo’s testimony:
The money was awarded with the intent to be used for her continued care, and with a life expectantcy estimated at 50 years. He mentioned nothing about her desire to be spared the indignity of a life sustained artificially. If your spouse told you they would not want to be kept alive artificially, and then they suffered a debilitating accident, don’t you think that’s something that would come up during a malpractice trial where you are responsible for determining the future care of this person?
I’m not saying that I believe wholeheartedly in the ill-intentions of Mr. Schiavo, but I don’t think things add up from his perspective.
I understand where your confusion may lie. If Terri’s case were anything like my grandmothers, then I would be in full support of Mr. Schiavo. However, the events surrounding Terri’s collapse and the behavior of her husband thereafter have done nothing but throw up warning flags in my mind. There’s something fishy about this whole thing, and I don’t quite know what. A 26 year old woman suddenly has a heart attack due to a lack of potassium? Her husband fights to have monies awarded in a malpractice suit for her care, and then places a DNR order claiming she would not want to be kept alive?
As for my grandmother’s case, if they had not fought so hard to bring her back after the stroke, and pneumonia, I would have understood. But to starve her to death on purpose? To deny her food? That is just cruel. If Terri’s body and what may be left of her mind is capable of functioning with continued nutrition, then refusing that, IMO would be ending her life prematurely. If she is taken over by illness, then it can be considered a natural death.
I guess I just feel that without any proof that she would have wanted to be euthanized, and saving any life-threatening illness, to proactively engage in bringing about her death is wrong, no matter the chance of recovery, or quality of life.
I’ll admit that I have a limited understanding, and would very much appreciate an expert (Qadgop?) stopping by to elaborate, but I’ve always understood that pain did not function in a very specific way, which is why it’s so difficult to treat. It can be as much psychological as physiological. This is why some martial artists and practitioners of eastern philosophy claim they can completely block pain impulses - and appear to be successful in doing so.
At one point, as I understand it, current medical knowledge held that women who pursued intellectual studies could become sterile as a result of doing so, and mental illness in women could be cured by orgasm. So, medical knowledge is not always complete or correct.
All I do know is that it’s a very complex thing, and I personally would be hesitant to state unequivocally that she is not aware, to some degree, of her environment.
If the comatose woman never expressed her wishes in any way the court can use to be sure, shouldn’t the decision be made by her legal next of kin?
I understand that her parents want to do all that they can, but I don’t think they should be allowed to overrule the wishes expressed by the woman’s legal proxy - her husband.
I also understand the desires of those who want to err on the side of safety, but it has been thirteen years and hundreds of thousands of dollars that could have been used for something productive.
It’s over for this woman. It has been for years. If the parents can’t realize that, they should not be allowed to waste all that has been wasted trying to bring the dead back to life.
Maybe I am biased. My favorite aunt died (yesterday) under the circumstances that I want to die - at home, in the company of her husband of almost sixty years, at peace with God and man, and going about her life.
I’ll miss her, but I can’t be sad. Her death is not a tragedy, it was a fulfillment.
I want all deaths to be like that. And a death like that has been on hold for this comatose woman for thirteen years.
Regards,
Shodan
This doesn’t seem like a very objective source. In fact, the entire site seems pretty agenda driven. Consider these two links to other CNS articles from the page cited:
The Marxist Underpinnings of Homosexual ‘Marriage’
RU-486 Critics Counter Claims About Abortion Drug, from which I got this choice morsel:
and this one–which relates to this case: Christian Medical Expert Disputes Secular Views in Schiavo Case
As if the fact that the medical expert was Christian meant s/he was more objective. The original article cited by XJETGIRLX contains the same supposition we’ve already been over, namely the already disputed affidavit of the one questionable nurse, along with insinuation about “other nurses”, and a link to www.zimp.org, which is actually a rollover site for terrifights.org. There was nothing new or convincing there. Sorry.
I’ve followed this case for a few years now.
My opinion after reviewing the evidence:
She was essentially brain-dead from the get-go.
There is no hope of recovery, and has not been since the initial week of the incident.
Court ordered “therapy and rehabilitation” was ludicrous as it would have had no benefit.
Her parents are acting out of both deep love for her and deep denial.
Her husband has both the right and the duty to make decisions for her.
Her husband has been trying to get the right decision implemented for years now.
It’s a tragedy all around, but it is compounded by her parents working so hard to paint her husband as a villain.
Sorry about your loss, Shodan. And while we’ve got different interpretations of some things, I agree with your essential point.
To bring that back around to this particular case a bit: what happened to Terri Schiavo 13 years ago was tragic. The inevitable result of removing the feeding tube (assuming it’s allowed to take its course) is not.