Defying the Death Culture (Stoke Victim Nearly Suffered the fate of Terri Schiavo)

The New American ^ | 05.16.05 | Ann V. Shibler

[Coleus]

New Zealand-born Kate Adamson-Klugman experienced a double brainstem stroke in 1995 at the age of 33. She was helpless and completely paralyzed, suffering from "locked-in syn­drome." Kate thought she was clear in her own mind about what she would want if she ever experienced a catastrophic injury or illness. She knew she would face death bravely; she wanted no heroics. But as she lay in an intensive care unit, listening to the doctors talk about her own impending death and their plans not to treat her, her ideas of medical aid toward incapacitated persons drastically changed. Her own will to live surged, and she began to fight for her life. Joining her in her fight was her husband, Steven, who became Kate's advocate, re­fusing to believe that Kate would die, refus­ing to sit back and do nothing and insisting on an aggressive, proactive course.

During Kate's extraordinary ordeal, when doctors considered her unrespon­sive, she was still conscious, with cogni­tive skills. Fully alert, awake, and aware, she heard and understood everything that went on around her. She felt everything during her time on life-support and during her rehabilitation, especially the intuba­tions, the insertion of a feeding tube with­out complete anesthesia, and the excruci­ating pain of starvation when the tube was turned off for eight days. She has written a book entitled Kate's Journey, which details her triumph over enormous adversity and includes the thoughts that were constantly running through her mind, thoughts she was incapable of expressing.

After months and years of intense thera­py and sheer determination, Kate's survival and recovery are deemed one-in-a-million. She remains partially paralyzed on the left side, but leads an extremely active life as wife, mother, and spokesperson. Both she and her husband have recently become out­spoken advocates for those unable to speak for themselves, frequently testifying before Congress in defense of the sanctity of life.

The New American: How common do you think forced dehydration and starvation, as in the removing of feeding tubes, is?

Kate Adamson-Klugman: I think it is more prevalent these days. I think it was happening long before the Terri Schiavo case. I actually had quite a number of e-mails from people saying it has happened to their family members. Ten years ago you just didn't starve people to death. Today courts back up selfish disregard for human life with decrees that terminate life solely because some judge determines that that life is not worth living.

TNA: Do you expect the trend of feeding tube removal for unresponsive patients to become more common?
Kate: I think that's where we're heading, especially for patients who cannot speak for themselves. I want to make sure that the presumption, in the absence of express and explicit written documentation to the con­trary from the patient, always favors life.

TNA: Was what happened to Terri Schiavo truly euthanasia?
Steven Klugman: It was murder. Eu­thanasia is just a euphemism for murder anyway.

TNA: Do you think that instead of starv­ing patients to death, patients will be killed through lethal drugs, supposedly for humanitarian reasons?

Kate: Well that would be more humane. That's the scary thing; again, it looks like we're headed that way. These are helpless people with no one to speak for them. I have lost confidence in judges alone mak­ing these kinds of decisions. Congress needs to take back its rightful role as the final authority on the proper role of the ju­diciary. Proper checks and balances among the three branches of government must be maintained. Congress should make sure that courts dispense not only justice, but that the justice meted out by the courts is fair.

TNA: Is there an organized effort to make euthanasia commonplace in this country?

Steven: Insurance companies want people dead. They want to warehouse people in order not to spend money on them. Terri Schiavo had potential that her family saw because they spent eight, ten hours a day with her. Doctors are quick to say to families, "You see what you want to see." Doctors are not always reliable because they spend about ten minutes a day with the patient; their decisions are based on little or no information, and they take the easiest route. Don't get me wrong, doctors do wonders but are often quick to assume. I would ask, "What would you do if this was your wife lying here?"

Michael Schiavo had the money to hire experts, not independent doctors, to come to the conclusions that he wanted them to come to. Then he could hire the lawyers to get the results he wanted. The money was supposed to be used to treat and rehabilitate Terri — the money that he was awarded in Terri's malpractice case. Our economic system, if not tempered by morality, has an incentive to kill her in the first place because she is "inconvenient."

TNA: The pro-death crowd claims that there is a "right to die " and that the decision to die belongs to the patient. Because of the Schiavo case, do you think that individuals could be killed who expressly stated their intent to live? Steven: Yes, and they are. Take the 71-year-old Georgia woman, Mae Magouirk. She has a living will, but her guardian granddaughter, who is also her beneficiary, had Mrs. Magouirk moved to a hospice, where she was subsequently denied nourishment and proper hydration. Thankfully, due to other family members' insistence, she has been removed to a hospital where she is making progress, speaking, and eating on her own. But what's next? Killing 69-year-olds?

TNA: There seems to be a built-in "default for death" in this country lately, instead of a respect for life. Is this the result of an organized effort in this country to move away from supporting the sanctity of life and toward what might be termed a death ethic?
Steven: It is a consequence of abortion. Change the definition of a person and of a life and you can kill it. First, kill their consciences and then you can kill the people. The taking of an inconvenient life is both abortion and euthanasia. Michael Schiavo says, I want to kill, I don't want to be bothered. Abortion and euthanasia have that in common, and always it is with people who can't protest.

Fifty years ago Pastor Martin Niemoeller, who opposed Hitler and was imprisoned, after the war said, "In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up." People need to know that they are coming for them.

TNA: Are you at all concerned that, if a national health care program is established, that power could be abused?

Steven: I am no more concerned about a national health care program as opposed to a private one; without morality, it's a toss up. My point is, that unless godly principles are applied to this question, no matter who decides the question, people will be at risk. Government failed Terri Schiavo rather spectacularly, and I surely would not want to trust my life to the government, nor would I want to trust myself to the good wishes of the insurance companies. Life is expensive. We stopped taking care of our older people, grandparents, and parents, and turned that role over to the government — a government that is simply not equipped. Social Security cannot replace the family. The proper role of government is to keep us from killing and hurting each other.

TNA: In conclusion, do either of you have any additional thoughts you would like to share with our readers?

Kate: When I waged my fight to get treatment, the way life was viewed in this country was a potent weapon in my husband's fight to save me. It would not be so today. Looking back at the Terri Schiavo tragedy. I can only shake my head in grief and disbelief. Why weren't Americans outraged at this legislated homicide? There should have been uncountable numbers of people demonstrating, supporting the Schiavo family, lobbying, etc. It did strike a chord with the disabled of this country who. I might add, do vote.

We must hold judges and our electee representatives accountable. We must de- mand that they uphold all life within the framework of the Constitution. Never again should we allow judges the sole and unbridled discretion to make these kind of decisions without affording the "condemned" all the rights of an accused criminal or an endangered species. The disable* the helpless, the sick, and the elderly do not want special treatment. They just want to be treated as human beings, created the image and likeness of God.

[Coleus]

Fallacies About the Schiavo Case

[LoneRangerMassachusetts]

ping

[Earthdweller]

Great article!!!

[Dark Wing]

This is the thing of nightmares.

[Sun]

And we can do something about it by calling our reps and U.S. senators and tell them we want a ban on starving and dehydrating our fellow Americans.

Toll-free number to call both reps and senators is in my tagline.

[Coleus]

Thanks.

[8mmMauser]

A poignant perspective, Coleus, and thank you...

8mm

[BykrBayb]

This is a very good thread. Thanks for posting it Coleus, and thanks for the ping 8mm.

[Sun]

Some don't know how strong their will to live will be if they are facing the POSSIBILITY of death. IMO, this is a very powerful snippet from the article from The New American:

".... she wanted no heroics. But as she lay in an intensive care unit, listening to the doctors talk about her own impending death and their plans NOT (emphasis mines) to treat her, her ideas of medical aid toward incapacitated persons drastically changed. Her own will to live surged, and she began to fight for her life."