EEEEEEEEEEK!!!!!!!!
It's a feeding tube!!!! Quick, hide under the covers!!!
Posted on 11/05/2003 3:07:03 AM PST by kattracks
Capitol Hill (CNSNews.com) - A coalition of pro-life Christian groups Tuesday challenged the premise that human beings have the right to a minimum "quality of life" and can choose to end their lives when that standard is not achieved. The announcement came one day before the family of Terri Schindler Schiavo was to go back to court to have her husband, Michael Schiavo - who is actively seeking to end the disabled woman's life - removed as her guardian.
George Felos, one of Michael Schiavo's attorneys, told NBC's Today show on Oct. 22 that not allowing Schiavo to end his wife's life was "an absolute trampling of [Terri's] personal rights and, and her dignity.
"It's already been determined by the court she has the right to refuse artificial feeding, which she did," Felos said, repeating Michael Schiavo's widely disputed claim.
The author of Litigation as Spiritual Practice complained that Terri had been "abducted from her deathbed" and that the Florida legislature had unconstitutionally given Gov. Jeb Bush (R) "the power to just override a patient's medical treatment choices" when it passed "Terri's Law." Bush ordered Terri's nutrition and hydration resumed against Schiavo's wishes almost immediately after the proposal became law.
"Instead of allowing her a peaceful, painless death in a short period of time," Felos complained, "this act, in fact, may have prolonged her death, and she may be under significant physical distress and an extended death process."
Felos, a noted advocate of the so-called "right to die," won the Florida Supreme Court case that granted competent adults in the state the right to issue a written "advanced directive" declaring the conditions under which life-prolonging medical care should be terminated if they are unable to communicate their wishes at the time due to illness or injury. Terri had no such advanced directive.
Whether or not Terri - who suffered a brain injury in 1990 under questionable circumstances while at home alone with her husband - verbally expressed a desire not to be kept alive by a feeding tube is still a point of great contention.
Schiavo, his brother and another brother's wife claim Terri made comments to that effect to them. None of Terri's biological family, friends, co-workers or fellow parishioners has come forward to support the claim, which conflicts with Terri's expressed Catholic faith.
So-called "right-to-die" groups, such as "End of Life Choices" (formerly known as the Hemlock Society), believe that "depriving someone of choice and dignity in the final chapters of life is morally and ethically wrong.
"[End of Life] Choices advocates that physicians should have the right to help terminally ill patients achieve a peaceful death, if that is the patient's desire, because no government has the right to legislate over death," the group states on its website.
Pro-life group questions Terri's alleged wishes, 'right-to-die' philosophy
But the National Pro-Life Religious Council (NPRC) discounts the underlying premise of the entire "right-to-die" argument.
"It presumes that we are entitled as human beings to a certain 'quality of life,'" said Kirk Vanderswaagh, vice president of the NPRC. "That is a very subjective decision as to what the standard is to judge that by."
The NPRC believes that neither permanent disability nor injury nor serious illness is sufficient grounds to justify intentionally and prematurely ending any human life.
"When that is already embraced, then the next thing that happens is that, as in this case, we have somebody else making that decision for someone," Vanderswaagh said. "The next step after that is [to assume] that it is perfectly alright to take a human life when 'circumstances' call for it."
Vanderswaagh noted that the acceptance of an alleged "right to die" is anathema to the centuries-old concept of valuing all human life.
"The door is open because of the underlying assumption that we are free to destroy our life when we're no longer pleased with its quality, no longer pleased with its direction. That's, historically, always been viewed as something that's tragic," Vanderswaagh said. "When someone wants to commit suicide and can't face the future or doesn't like the way the future looks, that's something that we seek, as a society, historically, to want to go out and rescue somebody from, pull somebody in from the ledge of the building, not say, 'Go for it!'"
Vanderswaagh points to the U.S. Supreme Court's 1857 Dred Scott decision in which the very body charged as the ultimate protector of the rights of all Americans ruled that "Negro slaves" were not human beings, but rather, property. The group recalls another example, the murder of millions of Jews at the hands of Hitler's Nazi regime, as proof that humans cannot be trusted to appropriately decide such questions of humanity.
The NPRC also argues that, because its members believe God is the source of human life, they also believe it is up to God alone to determine when life ends, except in cases of a self-defense use of deadly force.
"Scriptures consistently affirm that we are creatures, not the Creator, that it is God who has made us, not we ourselves," Vanderswaagh said, noting that the "creature" designation applies to the disabled and dying just as much as to the able-bodied and well. "We're still obligated to treat that person with respect as a human being, and the only right impulse for that is to try to preserve life and not destroy it."
Regardless of opinions on 'right to die,' group says it's not an issue for Terri
Father Frank Pavone, president of the NPRC, believes the so-called "right-to-die" and "death-with-dignity" arguments are an irrelevant distraction from the facts of Terri's case. Though significant, Pavone said even the fact that Schiavo is trying to cause Terri's death by dehydration is not the key factor because "that happens routinely.
"Rather," Pavone said in an opinion column released Tuesday, "Terri's case is a test of whether we will wake up and realize that letting patients decide they want to be killed means that some patients will be killed against their will."
Vanderswaagh agreed, questioning why Schiavo still holds guardianship over his wife.
"Here's a man who's involved in a fully adulterous relationship, and somehow, he can still claim the right of 'husband?' I wonder whether Florida state law supports that," Vanderswaagh asked rhetorically. "If he has demonstrated himself to no longer be functioning within those marriage vows, is he still considered [her] husband?
"It's so absurd that he's exercising guardianship as a 'husband,'" Vanderswaagh concluded, "when he's clearly no longer her husband."
Terri's parents agree. Schiavo's adulterous relationship with a woman who has given birth to one child by him and is carrying his second child is listed as one of 50 alleged violations in a petition the Schindler family has filed with the Probate Court of Pinellas County, Florida. The petition seeks to have Schiavo removed as Terri's guardian and to have him replaced either with her father, Robert Schindler, or her sister, Suzanne Schindler Carr.
"Schiavo has demonstrated through repeated and gross failures to comply with the law that he is incapable of discharging the duties of guardian," wrote attorney Patricia Anderson in the petition.
Specific allegations the Schindler family makes against Schiavo in their petition include:
- Adultery in violation of Florida law;
- Misappropriation of funds awarded by a civil jury for Terri's rehabilitation;
- Conflict of interest. The Schindlers believe Schiavo may be trying to end Terri's life to avoid paying alimony that could be awarded if a new guardian successfully petitioned for a divorce on her behalf;
- Denial of health care in violation of Florida law;
- Failure to meet deadlines for completing guardianship plans as required by Florida law;
- Failure to complete annual guardian training as required by Florida law;
- Authorizing experimental medial procedures without court approval;
- Concealing information from the court; and
- Exceeding the specific guardianship authorities granted by the court, also allegedly in violation of Florida law.
Felos instructed CNSNews.com not to contact him for comments on stories regarding Terri in mid-September. He has, however, previously denied any guilt on the part of his client in response to allegations made by the Schindler family.
Listen to audio for this story.
E-mail a news tip to Jeff Johnson.
Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.
Horrors and fiendish torture--Rather good descriptions for a woman deprived of family support, in a room devoid of photographs and other stimulation at her captor's discretion.
I am certain you have one anecdotal experience about feeding tubes just waiting to be shared with us.
In response to tKathy in #2, maybe you could compare the horrors of "prolonged feeding tubes" to starving to death.
Religious conservatives are hurting Terri's case by injecting this sort of ideological zealotry into the discussion. This argument is not about Terri, it's about the personal religious ideology of those making it. Most Americans, and particularly most well-educated Americans such as those who are involved in making the decisions in this and similar cases, do not question the premise that people should be allowed to choose not to continue life-sustaining treatments, when they believe their quality of life no longer justifies it. Many of us are horrified at the thought that these religious zealots may one day manage to take over our own lives, and force us to stay alive well beyond when we want to, using huge amounts of personal, taxpayer, and insurer funds that we don't think should be expended on unwilling patients.
But none of this has anything to do with Terri Schiavo, who left no instructions as to her wishes, and who is unable to clearly express her wishes now. That's where the focus needs to be -- on what constitutes legally valid evidence of a patient's choice not to continue life-sustaining treatment. And the much-belated "memory" of a husband who has both personal and financial interests in ending his brain-damaged wife's life should most certainly be found NOT to constitute such legally valid evidence, especially in the face of conflicting testimony and wishes of other close family members.
What utter nonsense! There are hundreds of thousands of people who are fed with feeding tubes for a variety of reasons.
A shunt is placed in permanently. The tube is only hooked up at "dinner" time. Yea, the shunt site can get infected and undoubtedly mouth food is healthier and tastier. A feeding tube certainly has disadvantages and unpleasant side effects at times, but having to rely on one is not worth committing suicide or homicide over.
Agreed, and well put, with whom do we need to share this, knowing that the ACLJ has been denied a court room presence?
EEEEEEEEEEK!!!!!!!!
It's a feeding tube!!!! Quick, hide under the covers!!!
Maria Tetto who emerged from a coma after an accident six years ago, shares a laugh with her father, Frank.
This young woman, Maria Tetto, suffered severe brain damage and has had a feeding tube for six years.
Though she still has swallowing problems and needs the feeding tube, she can now talk, tell jokes, laugh, and keep a journal, thanks to agressive therapy.
Looks real fiendishly tortured. Riiiiiiiiight.
But none of this has anything to do with Terri Schiavo, who left no instructions as to her wishes, and who is unable to clearly express her wishes now. That's where the focus needs to be -- on what constitutes legally valid evidence of a patient's choice not to continue life-sustaining treatment. And the much-belated "memory" of a husband who has both personal and financial interests in ending his brain-damaged wife's life should most certainly be found NOT to constitute such legally valid evidence, especially in the face of conflicting testimony and wishes of other close family members.
First, let me agree with your very well-reasoned, and very accurate statement here. I have one question about one aspect of it, but more about that in a minute.
Religious conservatives are hurting Terri's case by injecting this sort of ideological zealotry into the discussion. This argument is not about Terri, it's about the personal religious ideology of those making it. Most Americans, and particularly most well-educated Americans such as those who are involved in making the decisions in this and similar cases, do not question the premise that people should be allowed to choose not to continue life-sustaining treatments, when they believe their quality of life no longer justifies it. Many of us are horrified at the thought that these religious zealots may one day manage to take over our own lives, and force us to stay alive well beyond when we want to, using huge amounts of personal, taxpayer, and insurer funds that we don't think should be expended on unwilling patients.
Here is where I have a first question. Why the invective directed against religious conservatives? I would doubt that any reasoned religious conservative would think it moral to attempt to extend a dying person's life from extraordinary medical treatment. [Unlike purely medical treatment, when food and water is withdrawn, the cause of death is not the terminal or underlying condition but rather starvation or lack of hydration. The crazy circular reasoning underlying the food and water as 'medical treatment' crowd is that ANY condition could be termed 'terminal' because any human being would die within a certain number of days if food and water were withdrawn.] There is a difference between allowing a dying person to die, against which there is no moral prohibition, and conversely, killing a person who is not dying.
However, one of the central points of the statements quoted in the article from Father Frank Pavone is that that though significant, even the fact that Schiavo is trying to cause Terri's death by dehydration is not the key factor because "that happens routinely, and he says that "Terri's case is a test of whether we will wake up and realize that letting patients decide they want to be killed means that some patients will be killed against their will."
You say that none of this has anything to do with Terri's case, and in an ideal world, you would be right. However, no matter what "safegaurds" or "precautionary procedures" you seek to invoke, it is indisputable that the lack of respect for the lives of certain individuals has historically led to the involuntary (on the part of the victims) active killing of many innocent people. How do you address this question, that is, beyond a rant against religious conservatives?
You can have a written directive if you want, (I always wonder what one is supposed to do if one has executed a written directive, but has changed his mind and cannot presently communicate that change of mind) but what do you propose as a "safeguard" for those who do not, so that those who are merely disabled or young and not termianlly ill cannot simply be killed at the whim of others?
Cordially,
How can can it be said that religious conservatives are out to hijack the legal system, since what you would think of as religious conservatives were the very founders of our political and legal systems?
They should have the option to employ assisted suicide, rather than starve and dehyrate themselves slowly and miserably, as some patients have been documented to have done when denied euthanasia.
Why? Advocating the active killing of patients by the medical profession, not just allowing dying people who do not want to undergoe extraordinary medical treatment to not prolong their lives is very, very dangerous. History documents the guargantuan atrocities perpetated by a medical professionals who have been given a license to kill. In a nutshell, such a degradation and corruption of the the medical profession is a reversion to a witch doctor mentality in which the witch doctor is believed to have both the power of life and the power of death over others. Why should we as citizens not have the right to attempt to ameliorate this corruption through legislation? If someone wants to kill himself, let him jump off a building or blow his brains out, or starve himself to death, or set himself on fire, or take a drug overdose. But giving doctors a license to kill their patients is no safeguard against abuse and the killing of the innocent - it is the antithesis of it. Killing the patient was for millenia, until very recently, considered as contrary to proper medical ethics. It was not religious conservatives who have hijacked the legal sytem to promote this change.
Cordially,
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.