Posted on 10/15/2003 12:18:18 PM PDT by Brian S
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:44:25 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Murder is the willful taking of human life. The removal of heroic measures which keep a person alive does not in and of itself constitute murder. Adding poisons to hasten a death would be murder. Removing heroic measures so as to allow nature to take its course is not.
Ask what Christian medical ethicists say.
It really does. The academics are bought and sold. There are bioethics committees being formed or in place at most hospitals. Many hospitals are also beginning futile care practises, which means they get to tell you they refuse care to those who are uncurable.
A few years ago here in Washington state, they passed a law saying it was legal to withhold meds from any patient if the doc or hospital said so. Including insulin from a diabetic.
I missed the law being passed, but fortunately was able to read about it on a Washington prolife site.
In the UK right now, there is a bill in Parliament being hotly debated. It is about mental capacity and the right of a doctor to kill, under this law, any mentally incompetent person he feels is lacking in "sufficient" quality of life. It has already passed the first stage needed.
In states all over this country doctors are stepping forward and killing people they feel are suffering. In Vermont the president of the Medical Society killed a woman who was terminal, but alive, by giving her an injection of a paralytic, which paralyzed her and she could no longer breathe. The Medical Society removed him from his presidency but gave him another executive position. No charges were filed. He admitted in public that neither the woman nor her family had asked him to kill her.
Assisted suicide is being considered in Vermont right now...do you think this killing was a coincidence?
The gaping hole in your theory is that none of these people were allowed to try to eat before their feeding tube was taken away, since the earlier cases, such as Nancy Cruzan and Christine Busalacchi could eat and drink just fine. It was taking too long though and institutional help costs money so they put in feeding tubes to make it more convenient for the staff. Christine's father then refused to allow her to eat again on her own because he preferred to kill her.
In at least one case, while it was in the courts, the roommate and nursing staff taught a woman to feed herself and by the time the big orders came down she was eating and drinking completely on her own. In spite of this, the judge had ruled she be left to die of dehydration.
And after I read docs discussing changing organ donation policies to remove organs from brain-damaged children in the ICU, so that they can be taken while the children are still alive, I know a whole lot more about what is happening than you do.
The issue here isn't whether it's possible for someone to have fluid pumped through their body by a heart-lung machine even after they're dead(*). To my mind, there's a big difference between saying there's no moral imperative to indefinitely pump fluid through someone who is in fact dead, and saying that concious people should be starved.
Unfortunately, many people seem to accept unquestioningly the claims that equate Terri to someone who is already dead. Tell a lie enough and people believe it.
(*) To be sure, sometimes it can be hard to tell whether someone who's having fluid pumped through them is really alive or dead, but with Terri there seems to be no such ambiguity.
Wesley says this is what they want us to say. Be careful. This is their next step and they hope the suffering of those like Terri will encourage us to implore them to step forward.
There are sins of omission as well as sins of commission.
"Who was Nancy Cruzan? Who is Christine Busalacchi?
"…[O]nce euthanasia is permitted in principle, the denial of food and water will undoubtedly be replaced by quicker and more aesthetic means."
Nancy Cruzan died of dehydration by court order on December 26, 1990, following 12 days without food or water. She was 33 years old. Nancy was severely disabled as a result of a car injury in 1983. She was not dying. Following her accident she ate mashed potatoes, bananas, eggs and link sausage.
Cruzan's care wasn't "exceptional"
A gastrostomy tube was implanted, even though Nancy could chew and swallow, in order to make her long term care easier. When the decision was made to remove the tube, no one attempted to assess her ability to swallow. Spoon feeding in her case was judged to be "morally repugnant" and "totally inconsistent" with what was wanted, according t a doctor who evaluated her.
Nancy could hear and see; smiled at amusing stories; cried at times when visitors left; sometimes tried to form words; experienced pain. She required no care except food and fluids, personal hygiene and repositioning to prevent bedsores. She could have been cared for at home.*
Busalacchi's "vegetative state"
Christine Busalacchi is 20 years old. She was severely brain-injured in a car accident in 1987 and currently resides in the Missouri Rehabilitation Center, the same center that cared for Nancy Cruzan. Her condition is described as "persistent vegetative state." Christine can speak simple words, mover her hands and legs on request, form emotional attachments, smile, and interact with people in her room. She is not dying. She is not on life-support machines. She is not receiving any extraordinary care. Her father is seeking her transfer to Minnesota for the purpose of removing her feeding tube.*
There is significant opposition to withdrawal of food and water
These cases and others like them, are stirring debate in our nation. Courts all the way to the Supreme Court are involved. There seems to be growing support for withdrawal of food and water. But no everyone agrees. Richard John Neuhaus, in The Religion and Society Report, May 1988, mentioned a statement expressing an alternative perspective, called "Feeding and Hydrating the Permanently Unconscious and Other Vulnerable Persons." Among the signatories was now-deceased Princeton theologian Paul Ramsey.
"Withdrawing food and water is a form of euthanasia," says Neuhaus. "It is usually a prolonged and ugly way of killing someone. Therefore, once euthanasia is permitted in principle, the denial of food and water will undoubtedly be replaced by quicker and more aesthetic means."
Food and water don't qualify as 'heroic measures'. Sorry.
In 1992 Marjorie had designated that her brother be given power of attorney for health care for her. He directed that the tube feeding be discontinued. The tube was removed.
Marjorie, of course, became hungry. She repeatedly asked those caring for her in the nursing home for food. But the order was clear, and legal. Marjorie was to be starved to death. She would have died unnoticed behind closed doors had it not been for the conscience of one staff member who saw Marjorie touch a nurse’s arm and ask for food. He told a priest, who contacted the local chapter of Right to Life, who reported Marjorie’s situation to Florida’s Health and Rehabilitation Services. The case went to court. Ultimately the judge ruled that Marjorie not be fed on the basis of her not being competent to ask for food. The employee who reported the incident was fired. Marjorie died on April 6, 1995.
If Schiavo were to divorce Terri, no court would refuse it. There are, however, a couple of problems he'd face:
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.