Posted on 03/25/2005 12:20:58 PM PST by MarMema
I don't have to 'foresee every situation' to know I do not wish to live by feeding tube. I cannot think a circumstance where I would want that. Remember that these durable powers do not come into play unless you are already incapable of making your own decisions.
It is still true that, whether you wish to be artificially maintained, or whether you wish (as I do) not to be artificially maintained, it is most important to write your wishes down.
The government is clearly becoming very active in enforcing its will upon helpless people. It would be much better to 'arm' family members with weapons to protect you against your 'friendly' government.
I had always thought well of Gilmore, but had never heard this story of Hugh Finn. I am appalled that after the family resolved all their differences, poor Hugh had to face an onslaught from his state government and some unrelated woman who thought she knew best.
One thing you can be sure of is that it will not be one dollar more than was in existence on the date of Terri's cardiac arrest in 1990. She immediately became uninsurable. Since she was 26 and Michael was 27 and they didn't have a lot of money, I doubt it was very much, if any. Don't let your anger carry you away.
I was in the WLKY coverage area from 1984-88, but I just cannot remember Hugh Finn. I did not watch any early morning or noon local news; so that is probably why I did not recall him being on the air.
I noted that both he and Terri were born in PA.
Terri worked for an insurance company. She could have had extraordinary coverage as a fringe benefit. In fact, that's how the Schindlers got to FL, wasn't it? Terri and MRS moved first because of HER job. Then the Schindlers joined them a few months later.
I bet to God they wish that they had never left PA.
You can be sure that there is $ in this for MRS. How, I don't know for sure.
But Mrs. Finn, you can bet your last dollar, would not have removed the feeding tube of one of the children, if one of them had not recovered from the accident. She would not have done that to her "blood" relative. She did it to her husband without blinking for the $! She let it ride until HE became a financial liability.
I'd like to see the source of that statistic. If true, I suspect it is people like me, who don't want to be kept alive in a mentally incompetent state under any circumstances if they can help it. Frankly, if I am in a nursing home and mentally incompetent, I don't want them to feed me by feeding tube, by hand, by mouth or by KFC. That'll be me 'stealing home' and excited to do so. My wife's already Home, and I can't hardly wait to join her.
Steal away, steal away, steal away to Jesus!
Steal away, steal away home,
I ain’t got long to stay here.
Do you know some facts beyond those in the story or are you just putting your spin on it? Even though the story is written from the 'physical life at all costs' perspective, I don't see that in the story.
I have always found it difficult to predict what people 'would' do in other circumstances. Moreover, you ascribe motivations that would be hard to know. Are you sure your a priori position in favor of extending physical life isn't coloring your view here?
Surely, you do not think for a moment that Mrs. Finn would have removed the feeding tube had it been one of the three children in that situation, rather than her husband. Blood (birth) is thicker than water (marriage).
Probably a relative of mine. Ironic, isn't it, when a liberal has to live and then die by their own standards.
I can only hope Judge Greer is someday euthanized in a nursing home the same way the SOB has euthanized Terri Schiavo.
What you don't seem to understand is that both the label of PVS and a feeding tube are now murder weapons. PVS is considered a terminal illness because by definition a true PVS patient dies within a year. Therefore it is essential to have that diagnosis in order to remove food and water from someone.
The British study is one of the largest and most comprehensive investigations on PVS to date. Its findings are similar to an earlier U.S. study which found that, of the PVS patients who were referred to the Healthcare Rehabilitation Center in Austin, Texas, 38% were not vegetative at all and actually responded to stimuli upon subsequent examination.
Andrews noted that all of the misdiagnosed patients were severely disabled; 65% were either blind or profoundly visually impaired..."
In a BMJ editorial, Minneapolis neurologist Ronald Cranford pointed out that the quality of life of the 17 misdiagnosed patients was still questionable. "I would speculate," Cranford wrote, "that most people would find this condition far more horrifying than the vegetative state itself, and some might think it an even stronger reason for stopping treatment" (i.e., food and fluids).
Seeing your name on the threads was what made me think to post it.
Your comment presupposes that the reason for removing the feeding tube is insufficient (or at least lesser) love for the subject. Of course, there are exceptions to every rule, but that is certainly not the rule.
In fact, to the contrary, I think the primary reason that relatives maintain drastically-impaired people is that the relative can't bring themselves to let go. While that is understandable, it is no less sad. I think it is our duty as Christians to think of the best for the drastically-impaired individual, not what is best for us, the bystanders.
Terri's situation is a good example. The easy thing would be to hook her up again. It surely serves her no good; her brain will not grow back. At some level, it makes us feel good, because we can feel we have prevented the irreparable break (between her and us) of death. It allows us to avoid the reality that the 'break' has already occurred with the loss of her brain. It is natural and understandable for people to want to hook her up again for their own sakes, but it is not excusable. It is best for Terri to die. That is what she wanted and it stops the abuse of her body. But we know it is morally best when we look to Jesus' analysis.
I have tried several times on other threads to get our Christian brothers and sisters to think seriously about Jesus' formulation of the Golden Rule: "In everything, treat others as you would want them to treat you." (Mt 7:12) Much of the invective on FR is directed toward those who would "kill" or "murder" others. I think it is much more productive to start the analysis, as Jesus does, with what we would want for ourselves. Generally, it is much easier for people to admit that they, themselves, would not want to continue to live in the circumstances afflicting Terri. That is certainly true for me; and I have to believe that for those who are honest with themselves, for them too.
Once we admit that, then, again following Jesus' analysis, we can see what we should do to help others attain that which we would want for ourselves. Because He told us, mutatis mutandis, to "Treat Terri as you would want Terri to treat you (if the circumstances were reversed)." Because it is much easier for me to know what I would want Terri to do for me, were the circumstances reversed, it helps me to see what I need to do to help Terri.
That is why I believe Judge Greer's order is not only the only lawful answer under our system of law, but also the 'Christian answer' to Terri's predicament as well.
That's not very "persistent" then, is it?
Some patients may regain a degree of awareness after persistent vegetative state. Others may remain in a vegetative state for years or even decades. The most common cause of death for a person in a vegetative state is infection such as pneumonia.
You did not answer my point at all about birth and marriage. Your post reeks of nazism to me. And I thought that Bob Dole gave an arm to end nazism. Why is it still rampant in Pinellas Park, FL, tonight?
"The adjective "persistent" refers only to a condition of past and continuing disability with an uncertain future"
"A wakeful unconscious state that lasts longer than a few weeks is referred to as a persistent vegetative state."
Somebody posted on another board that the ultraliberal OR Republican Gov. Tom McCall claimed he did not want to live by artificial means either, but when he faced death, Mr. McCall changed his mind.
An excellent summary on PVS. Cuts both ways on the Terri issues.
McCall left office on January 14, 1975. Despite his famous 1971 quote imploring people not to move to the state, Oregon's population grew 25% during his eight years in office. He took a job as KATU television's news analyst, and also traveled nationwide supporting other states' efforts to enact bottle bills similar to Oregon's. He also actively opposed a 1976 effort to abolish the LCDC, and another effort to dismantle it in 1982. In February of 1978 McCall announced he would once again run for governor, however his campaign suffered from a lack of both funding and focus, and he was defeated by Victor Atiyeh in the Republican primary.
In December 1982 he was hospitalized, and on January 8, 1983 Tom McCall lost a long battle with cancer. He was buried in Redmond Memorial Cemetery
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.