Replies

And how do you feel about this, btw?

I don't particulary like the idea of "harvesting" organs from live donors, but (again) I have discussed such possibilities with my family. And of course, my drivers' license has the donor sticker, as well as the donor card...

But the key sentence here, is "and who are either neurologically devastated" would seem to apply this woman Terri, would it not? After all, her autonomic functions are all intact, but cognitive functions are (from all accounts) destroyed. Did she not suffer from "neurological devastation," to use their term? Food for thought...

I don't know if such "guidelines" are meaningful, from either a moral perspective or legal perspective. In such circumstances....? The legal system follows the guidelines and stare decisis, however repugnant the side-effects may be...

Contrary to accusations on the other thread, I don't really have a firm opinion on how it should be, simply because I'm somewhat familiar with the legal system, and can see both sides... The husband is within his rights, and no person without legal standing can make a credible challenge.

That's the way it is.

Be well,

You may be surprised that I agree with you. The husband is well within his rights. That is the problem for me, however.

The physician/authors above are pediatricians, if that makes any difference. It seems like a very very slippery slope to agree to take organs before death, especially from ( yet again) a vulnerable population such as injured children.

The problem with the term "neurologically devastated" is that it means nothing, and that may actually be intentional. I am a medical professional and this term is completely meaningless. Therefore it is open to lots and lots of interpretation, of course. Guess who gets to be the interpretor?

Thanks for reading and good luck with medical care in the future, an an organ donor. :-)

Terri Schiavo's husband has no right to starve his wife, as she is not brain dead, did not write out her wishes or execute an Advance Directive, and she can evidently swallow and so may not even *be* dependent on "artificial" nutrition. (and, the woman shown on her parent's website is most definitely not in a "persistent vegetative state.")

Another factor is that the "tube" was placed. It was there to use and no machines are actually necessary. Removing the feeding tube was an action, requiring the use of people and devices that are regulated by the State of Florida, under their Medical laws and regulations. That makes the removal the business of the State and her citizens.

One of the Op-Ed pieces on the Schiavo case made a great comment about Terri's supposed wishes that every lawyer should understand: under what other circumstances would such hearsay testimony be allowed, much less used for the justification of a death penalty?