We are not justified in forcing people to accept feeding tubes against their will.
We are a nation of laws, not personal “moral yardsticks.”
And what Florida law do you think should be changed? Do you think the government should be allowed to stab tubes into people against their will? Do you think people have the right to refuse medical treatment?
You are completely misinterpreting the values I am applying to this issue.
I do not want the state to decide if someone should live or die. Without an understanding of the patient’s will - beyond a reasonable doubt - we should err on the side of life. This is very consistent with the Right To Be Left Alone, which , to me, pretty much sums up the intent behind the Bill of Rights.
Your comment about sustaining an empty shell and putting the disabled person out of his or her misery is horrifying without evidence of the individual’s wishes.
Absolutely not.
My issue with the manner in which Terri was treated is that we did not have evidence of her wishes beyond a reasonable doubt.
Yes, people have the right to refuse medical treatment.
No, the state should not make that decision for them in the absence of definitive proof of their wishes.
I’m confused to how you missed the part where that’s exactly what happened,
I am not one of “those people”.
Thank you very much.
Your confusion lies in the fact that you have decided to believe that Michael knew Terri’s wishes better than her blood relatives. You can decide who is more credible to you. I get to decide that for me.
A recollection 7 years after the fact and soon after a major malpractice award without corroboration by her family is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt for me.
If it is for you, then groovy.
Reasonable people can agree to disagree.
I strongly suggest you read the Harvard Crimson piece to which I linked earlier in this thread.
If that person does not WANT nutrition from a feeding tube, then yes, we are.
Terri was not just “severely disabled.” She was in a persistant vegetative state, and most of her brain was GONE. No, she wasn’t terminally ill, but in her state, she was extremely vulnerable to dying by bacterial infections, gangrene, etc. Her parents stated they would have had her LIMBS CUT OFF if she had diabetes, and insisted on open heart surgery if she had a heart attack (which would surely kill her!)
They even said-“Even if she didn’t want this, WE DO.” In other words, they didn’t care about what SHE, herself, may have wanted.
Not really true. PVS is almost always terminal. Terri was unusual in how long her body stayed alive…mostly that was due to the equisitely good care provided by her husband.
More to the point, though, it’s irrelevant. People don’t have to be terminally ill in order to have the right to refuse medical treatment. You don’t get to stick feeding tubes into people against their will no matter what you think your god is whispering in your head.
Yes she was. She had a flat EEG for 15 years. That’s brain dead, sweetie.
And once again, it’s irrelevant. She was not required to be brain dead in order to have the right to refuse a feeding tube.
She was brain dead.
Strawman. The only issue is whether people should be forced to accept feeding tubes against their will.
I do not believe that Michael adequately established proof that Terri would have wished to have nutrition withheld. It is also important to note that he refused to have antibiotics administered and the physical therapy given which may have improved her functioning.
Again, as a society, when there is a reasonable doubt, should we err on the side of life or death?
This is really the basic issue, whether you wish to acknowledge it or not.
She was not brain dead. She could breathe on her own. If she were brain dead for 15 years, honey-bunch, then how did she breathe on her own>
Please read the Harvard Crimson commentary.
Really?
I think you’re wrong.
Why?
I live in Oregon that has the Physician Assisted Suicide law. This law has been under attack starting with Ashcroft and following along with his replacement.
The arrogance of the ‘Right to Life’ movement allows them to decide that they and the book they wantonly misinterpret are on a holy mission to make sure that everyone stays alive until the bitter end.
Unless they’re poor, in Texas, and have no ability to pay. And who made that law which allows babies on life support to be PUT TO DEATH? Why, George W. Bush, Champion of Life™.
From The U. S. Government
From http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/21571/
It’s all about kissing ass and publicly capitulating to a massively vocal minority that the reigning party wants to keep in their corner.
I have read through your previous posts, wench. You may be a lapse Catholic, but you parrot a party line that is borne of indoctrination. You parrot a line of absolute disinformation and deception that ignores the facts and reality for a construction that supports a perverse belief in life of any type at any cost, including the cost of ignoring the wishes of the patient and their care provider who is attempting to honor it.
If there was an advance directive there might have been a lesser amount of controversy and public furor, but there still would have been one. The public thinks that not only should they have an opinion, but like a biological version of American Idol that their uninformed opinion should be heard and followed.
Well, true, she wasn’t technically “brain dead.” Of course, she didn’t have much of a brain anyways.
I would think that her HUSBAND would know her a lot better than her parents. Either way, the burden of proof was on her husband, and they found adequate evidence that she did not want to live like this. EVERY SINGLE TIME. By how many freaking courts?
Her husband denied her therapy? Hello, in the first years, he did EVERYTHING he could, until he finally accepted it wasn’t going to work. There was nothing that COULD have been done. She was not going to get better, most likely she’d just get worse.
If Michael didn’t care about her, or didn’t help her, then how was it she never even had one bedsore, in all of fifteen years? Not ONE. The man became a NURSE in order to help her.
Your arrogance makes further conversation meaningless.
And then that man started a new family after earlier pledging to stay with her until death due them part.
He defacto abandoned her for another woman - which, should have caused him to cede his guardianship. That would have been the decent thing to do.
He did not do everything possible. The hospice staff were ordered to do the basic minimums to keep her alive. She did not receive physical therapy. Her testing was stopped. He would not allow food or water to be given to her orally.
It wasn’t just Michael who testified as to her wishes. You have been told this more than once. You no longer have an excuse to keep repeating falsehoods.
Are you married? I guarantee my wife knows me better than my parents do and vice versa. Why the hell would you think that would not be the case?
When a person signs a marriage contract, he/she is making a conscious legal decision to designate his/her spouse as the person to make these kinds of decisions. To suggest that spouses should be ignored and all power of attorney should revert back to the parents (who were NOT chosen by the patient) is not only asinine but completely disingenuous. If the roles were reveresed - if the parents wanted to pull the plug and the spouse did not - you would be singing a completely different tune and you know it.
This is just more lying on your part. There was no sudden “recollection,” and Michael Schiavo gained nothing from the lawsuit. All of the money went to Terri’s care and to legal fees. A small amount was spent on nursing school so Michael could take better care of Terri. There is nothing left of it and there was never a monetary motive in this for Michael. he also turned down offers totalling $11 million to give up guardianship. Why did he do that if he was interested in money?
It wasn’t seven years after Terri’s collapse but about four years before Michael (after years of attempted therapy and treatment) was finally convinced by the doctors that Terri had no chance of recovery. At that point he asked the Florida courts to determine what Terri’s wishes were. After hearing the testimoney of five different witnesses the court found “clear and convincing” evidence that Terri would not have wanted to be kept alive on a feeding tube.
Disagreeing is one thing. Misrepresenting the facts and slandering people is another.
Wow. Still spewing judgemental condemnation based on bile spewed in the attempt to spin Michael into a monster and Terri into a victimized saint.
You aren’t going to be content until we set our brains aside and mindlessly agree with you.
I read the “article”, which was actually an opinion piece. It was a horrible, fallacy-ridden appeal to emotion, not the facts. Nobody wants to deny disabled people the right to live.
We’re talking about the right to refuse medical treatment. There is a huge difference. They didn’t want to “kill her” because she was “disabled.” Her husband said he wanted to let nature take its course because she wasn’t going to get better, only worse, she was in a PVS, which is so different from that young man’s cerebral palsy that we’re beyond apples and oranges. We’re talking apples and corn chips, or beef jerky and oranges, here.
You are selective in the facts to which you give weight and ignore the ones which do not support your version of the case (which is what most of us humans tend to do). There is plenty of evidence which counter-indicates Michael’s side of the story.
Terri was also Catholic. There is no Living Will. The evidence was tenuous and disputed by her family.
Yes, I am married. I would not want my husband to make life or death decisions for me if he were living with another woman by whom he had children.
What Terri’s case has done is demonstrated flaws in the law and the fact that the law cannot cover all of the moral implications of very human tragedies.
But again, I must ask, as a matter of public policy, do we err on the side of life or death?
Oh brother. I think this just shows your absolute ignorance of the matter. Of course she couldn’t be given anything orally-she was unable to swallow and would fucking CHOKE to death! Michael was right NOT to allow that. Jesus Christ!
How much more testing should have been done? SEVEN YEARS, they tested her-but her cerebral cortex was GONE. That’s it. Kaput. NOTHING can be done about a brain that’s half gone-you can’t get it back.
Sorry, there is evidence that she could swallow - he did not allow her to even try.
You have decided to believe Michael’s side of the case. I have decided to believe the family’s.
I don’t insult you for your beliefs. Why are you compelled to insult mine?