Right-to-die vs. How-to-die

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Barbarian

Allowing her to starve/die of dehydration may seem incredibly cruel, but if the patient is incapable of feeling anything, it really isn’t. Let’s face it-- if the person could react to the lack of food and water, they wouldn’t be in a PVS and left to die, and if they can’t feel anything, they can’t feel anything.

It is also a decision that is made hundreds, if not thousands of times each day in the U.S. Given the option, I think many more people would prefer euthanasia. After all, people put dogs and cats to sleep every day! And I really think the Schiavo case will result in two things: more people getting living wills, and more euthanasia laws on the books.

I agree that Terri cannot feel anyting such that the manner of her passing would cause her any distress. However, I mentioned before that the people around her who love her get to watch their loved one waste away over the course of 7-14 days. I cannot think this is in anyway good for them and cannot see how euthanasia at this point wouldn’t be better for all involved. Also, what if on the off chance everyone has it wrong and there is actually still some part of Terri that can feel pain and discomfort? I personally do not believe this is the case as if she could then the motive for removing her feeding tube disappears but just in case I would rather everyone err on the side of making her passing quick and painless.

@irishgirl

As for the difference between a lethal injection and removing nutrition and hydration…one means that someone is a murderer, the other means that a it has been decided that a patient should no longer receive life-prolonging treatment.

Calling it “murder” goes waaayyy beyond mischaracterizing what is happening here.

Main Entry: 1mur·der
Pronunciation: 'm&r-d&r
Function: noun
Etymology: partly from Middle English murther, from Old English morthor; partly from Middle English murdre, from Old French, of Germanic origin; akin to Old English morthor; akin to Old High German mord murder, Latin mort-, mors death, mori to die, mortuus dead, Greek brotos mortal
1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

SOURCE:
Merriam-Webster Online

There is no malice aforethought here.

There is no unlawful killing here (indeed the courts have scrutinized this case to the n[sup]th[/sup] degree and remain convinced that her feeding tube should be removed. You may still find it morally reprehensible but it is not illegal in this case.

As Barbarian mentioned we routinely euthanize our pets and we do so (in most cases) out of a deep love for them. It has torn me up inside to have a beloved pet put down but I went through with it because of my profound love for the animal…not because I was simply through with them. Why should it be any different for humans?

I understand that there needs to be many roadblocks in the way of euthanizing humans to be absolutely certain it is the correct thing to do. To me Terri’s case should be about as easy as it gets as it is hard to consider her alive in anything more than the crudest sense of the word. In cases where the person is still fully cognizant but suffering terribly the question starts getting more clouded.

Ages ago (over 30 years…I was very young) my grandfather was dying from intestinal cancer. At the end he was in the hospital in a delirium from pain and massive amounts of painkillers (he was still suffering). At this point he was absolutely never going to get out of that bed…his death was imminent within a matter of hours to maybe a day. As my mother tells the story his wife (my grandma) and his son (my dad) asked the doctor to help him along and they unofficially did so by giving him a bit too much painkiller.

Fast forward to a few years ago when my wife’s uncle was dying from cancer. Practically the same setup. My uncle is lying in the hospital at the end of his life. It is apparent to absolutely everyone. He fought the good fight for years but now he was in a hospital bed and it is absolutley apparent to everyone that he will not ever get out of it. His death is a matter of hours (maybe a day or two) away. The family keeps asking the doctors to give him more pain medication because he is obviously still in a greta deal of pain despite being unconscious. The doctors tell us he is already on so much that it would kill anyone there were they to get the same dose (he had built up a tolerance over the course of his cancer). They simply cannot do anything more for him and in this litigious age there will be no wink and a nod and a covert nudge to push the person into the next world. He died 14 hours after the last night I visited him in this state.

Personally I do not see that as an advance in medicine or ethics in any way, shape or form. If those who say it should be God’s role to move us along then fine but clearly medicine has advanced enough to thwart what nature would do to us if left to itself. I do not see how doctors hide behind the “do no harm” clause of their oath in response to this. I would say more harm is being caused in the above case than if they helped the patient along. The patient has nothing left except a few pain filled hours in a delirium (and had himself asked to be helped along in one of his rare lucid moments prior to the last stretch). The family, all of them devout catholics, would have opted for helping him along at the very end and they were all in pain to see him like that and be unable to help.

Bottom line is I absolutely fail to see why euthanasia cannot be part of the treatment that doctors can perform (with the caveat of appropriate safeguards so it cannot be abused).

[capacitor]

Because it will be abused. It will be abused to the extent that the instant someone says, ‘I want to kill myself’, is the instant the patient dies. Safeguards will become as effective as Orders of Protection.

I might be paranoid, and this is probably worst case scenario, but there were societies that did not even bother to wait for the lame and infirm to plead for mercy.