I know you said you can’t put a monetary value on life, but IRL it does come into play. If you were in a Schiavo-like situation, would it make any difference if you knew your family would be responsible for all the medical bills vs. the bills being paid by an insurance company or the government?
As a point of reference, the cost of Schiavo’s care has been estimated at $80,000 per year.
Just asking.
B. Absolutely B. As long as there was no hope of recovery, getting better, or what have you. I would not want to live like that. Hell, that’s not living-it’s just existing in limbo.
When our father died ten years ago—leaving no will, papers, contact numbers, nuthin’—my sister and I made out wills and Advance Directive/Health Care Proxy/Living Wills.
We both have it spelled out in no uncertain terms that if we get so much as a bad head cold or a broken nail, we are to be euthanized immediately.
As I’ve mentioned before, I favor B so strongly I’m considering a tattoo. Last time I brought it up, others pointed out that a tattoo alone has little or no force of law, but I can use it to call attention to the existence of a more formal document elsewhere.
I keep meaning to follow up on this. Thanks for the reminder.
I already have B and just hope that Bill Frist doesn’t do a long-distance diagnosis and have Congress decide that there was undue influence on me in that choice.
My grandmother has made it quite clear that she does not want to be kept alive with little chance of recovery. However, when anyone else in the family expresses the same wishes, she flatly objects to honoring them. :dubious:
I’m in the B camp, as is the rest of my family. Granny be damned!
Sounds like a false dichotomy to me, but my answer is also closer to B. I want to be kept alive if there’s a chance I can recover and live an enjoyable life. If it becomes clear that’s not possible, I don’t want to be kept alive artificially for an indefinite period of time while the rest of me rots.
As I said, I can’t make a decision that my life is only worth $80,000, or $100,000, or some other number per year. I can only say that I want to be kept alive. Currently there is no one with financial responsibility for me, but I have told my mother that if it came to that, I would want to be kept on life support. Naturally she pointed out the cost. I told her that she would be free not to pay, but that I would not simply say, “Well yeah, I’m only worth $20,000, and after that just pull the plug.”
This is what scares me about this debate. You don’t want to live in a persistent vegetative state? Fine. Write a living will, let your loved ones know. But don’t tell me that because that’s your decision, it should also be mine. I fear for all of the people who do want to live who will be intimidated by their friends and family into making the other choice.
It’s not a question of a specific monetary value. It’s about being a burden to your family.
I’m sorry you feel that way about hypothetical people.
Forget hypothetical people. What about this person? This thread is a poll, designed to elicit varying responses. And yet the one person in the thread who has chosen position A instead of position B is already being criticized for her choice and asked to defend it. And this same behavior has been repeated many times in my life. As I said, I was once opposed to giving people the right to die, because I felt that it would quickly turn into an obligation to die, so as not to burden others. Eventually I decided that people should be allowed to make their own choice. But I’m beginning to feel as though that’s not what the right to die folks want. Instead, they want everyone to make the same choice they make ("But why would you want to live if you’re only a vegetable? You do understand that there’s no chance of recovery? What about the monetary burden on your family? On society?) This is an IMHO poll. I’ve stated my opinion, and my reasons – that I believe that life, and my life in particular, is valuable, and I am not comfortable drawing a line and saying at which point (or which monetary value) it is not longer valuable. Beyond that, this will turn into a Great Debate.
What, you think people are just tripping all over themselves to get the chance to say yeah, shut off the life support, s/he’s not worth any effort to keep alive? If my husband were in Terri Schiavo’s condition, it would absolutely break my heart to tell the doctors to discontinue feeding, but it would do the same to keep him around as a vegetable that has animal-level reactions to movement and sound. And yet I know that’s his wish, that he never be kept “alive” in that state, and it’s mine as well, and I expect him to follow my wishes, and I know that it’d just tear him up to let me go as well.
I don’t push anyone into whatever decision. Write up a living will and power of attorney for health care yourself, put your wishes into writing, that way your loved ones won’t have a legal leg to stand on if they decide they want to pull the plug on you. That’s your right.
Thank you. That’s all I’m asking. But, as I stated in my previous post, that’s not the response I get from most people with whom I share my position. Instead, they tend to be outraged that I would choose to burden (my family, society, the government) with my non-responsive self. If everyone responded the way you did, by saying that it’s my choice, I would have no problem.
I knew that posting to this thread would open up this kind of discussion. But I wanted to do it, not only because I’ve gone through the argument IRL in the past few days because of Schiavo, but also because I didn’t want the poll responses to be entirely one-sided.
I don’t think we’re criticizing you as much as trying to understand your position. We don’t ask each other to explain our thought processes around choosing B because we already understand them (or think we do.)
It does seem that making the legal “default” decision that decision which most people would make is the most logical. Now, I’m not claiming we have a representative sample here. It may be that you are indeed in the majority (although that would surprise me.) But we only have this information to go on for the sake of discussion. And overwhelmingly, people choose B. And it seems from what you’re saying that you find this to be true in other fora as well. So wouldn’t it make sense to make the default legal decision B, in the absence of an advance directive stating A? You of course have the right to choose A, and should protect that right in writing.
It just seems that if, IF, an overwhelming majority of folks would choose B, then B should be assumed unless otherwise stated.
No, SpoilerVirgin, you’re not being criticized for your opinion. Not everybody understand where this obligated feeling comes from. And perhaps people are mildly insulted you think they’re unintentionally pressuring people to let their loved ones die when they don’t want to.
THAT, on the other hand, is an objectionable statement that deserves replies. And it’s really only a blunter way of stating your original position. Do you not understand why people are asking questions?
I have no desire to criticize you but I do have to ask - why? Is it a simple fear of death? Hope for a miracle cure in the future? If you had no chance of recovery - no chance of being the person that you are today - why would you want your body to remain alive? I’m not attacking you, I’m just genuinely curious. I think most people here just have the same feelings of wonder that I do regarding your position. I can understand not wanting to have the plug pulled for a hangnail, but in a situation where there is NO HOPE I just don’t understand.
To muddy the waters further, in a world of 6 billion people and growing every day, maybe an obligation to die under certain conditions would not be a bad thing. I know we live in an “every life is sacred” society, but maybe that’s a little divorced from reality.
Marley23 - This is where the obligated feeling comes from. Whenever I state my “make reasonable efforts to maintain my life functions” position, the discussion inevitably ends with someone stating this position. I am not attacking featherlou, who has a right to her opinion, merely using her as an example that there are definitely people out there considering the “obligation to die” approach.
Jaade - It is hard to explain my position fully, and I know that at some point it stops being a strictly logical, rational choice, and becomes something that I just feel. Why do I feel that it’s perfectly O.K. to bop a cow on the head and slit its throat so that I can have beef for dinner (I’m not an expert on slaughterhouse procedures, but you get the idea), but that someone abusing cats or dogs deserves legal punishment? I can tell you that it is definitely not fear of death – I believe that everyone has a time, and when that time comes, you die, and that’s the way it’s supposed to be. I just don’t believe that I can make the decision about when that time comes. I don’t believe in miracles, but I do think that a small part of my reasoning is that we can never tell with certainty what kinds of new medical advances will be made. I know that parts of Terry Schiavo’s brain are no longer there, and that certain types of recovery are impossible for her. But I just can’t say with certainty that Terry no longer exists. (All of this with the caveat, of course, that Terry did express her wish to die, and I am as appalled as everyone else by the attempts to disregard her wishes for political gain). Finally, it’s not relevant for me that I might have “no chance of being the person that [I am] today.” The person that I am today is not the person that I was yesterday, or the person that I will be tomorrow. While I certainly appreciate my higher brain functions, they are not the sum total of my existence. I don’t know exactly what kind of life I would be having in Terry Schiavo’s situation, or how I would value that life. But to me, it definitely is a life, and I would choose to keep it.
WhyNot – I kind of like the default the way it is, because it means that I don’t have to opt out of anything. However, I can see your point, and I wouldn’t object if the law were to go the other way, as long as I could still have the opt-out option. Given the politicians’ approach to the Schaivo case, I don’t think that it’s likely to happen any time soon.
It’s probably not a bad thing to have to verbalize your position - it can help you figure out where you stand. For a society that purports to believe in the afterlife, we sure have a fear of death and talking about it.
SpoilerVirgin, if it seems like people are reacting strongly against you right now, it might be because of this whole Terry Schiavo mess. Right now, people like me are watching the government step in and override her wishes and, while I can’t speak for others, I know I’m horrified by it. Just as you’re afraid that someone who agrees with me will force you to die, I’m afraid that someone like you will force me to live. The thing is, the former is illegal.
I respect your decision and you can count on me to defend you if you need it, even if I don’t agree with you.
CJ
She said “maybe it would not be a bad thing.” Your use of the word considering tells me you knew that. It’s a thought, not a statement that she’s going to out there and pressure you or anyone else or that that’s what should be done. And that’s one ‘maybe it wouldn’t be bad’ out of about three dozen responses.