Replies

Thank you for the non-confrontational response. That is how Freepers used to discuss the issues "pre-Terri."

Specifically, no one asked Terri if she would want to be cut off from food and water even though her parents would have to watch at least the physical effects of starvation and dehydration. These types of questions are wrestled with when people actually draw up living wills. That is why Terri's comments of years ago should not be controlling.

I guess it must be a pretty terrible thing to see someone dying of dehydration. What I think you're saying (correct me if I'm wrong) is that Terri wouldn't have wanted her parents to see her dying. Wouldn't that also apply to removal of a ventilator, if she were dependent on one?

My understanding of Terri's past statements is that she didn't want to think of herself as a useless lump of flesh hooked up to tubes and wires, as her grandmother was. And referring to the man in a coma on the TV show, she said that if that ever happened to her, she would want the tubes and everything taken out. Living as a vegetable was probably her definition of a living hell. If she could see herself as she is now, she would probably rip out that feeding tube herself. At least that's my opinion.

There's another Free Republic thread on the subject of living wills that made some excellent points. Terri Schiavo: Living wills can't cover all possibilities In it, a health care scientist says at the end "We really need to emphasize that there is a right to refuse treatment," Fagerlin said. "It would be a terrible outcome of this case if we don't let surrogate decision-makers make decisions to remove treatment." I'm afraid exactly that is going to happen, though.

We really need to emphasize that there is a right to refuse treatment," Fagerlin said. "It would be a terrible outcome of this case if we don't let surrogate decision-makers make decisions to remove treatment." I'm afraid exactly that is going to happen, though.

My biggest concern: since when is food and water considered treatment? We are not talking about passive euthanasia where someone refuses cancer treatment or a respirator to breathe for them...we are talking about active euthanasia...starving someone to death.

You asked: "What I think you're saying (correct me if I'm wrong) is that Terri wouldn't have wanted her parents to see her dying. Wouldn't that also apply to removal of a ventilator, if she were dependent on one?" What I mean is that Terri (or anyone contemplating end-of-life issues) should answer a series of questions, one of which concerns whether they accept that their families will have to witness the physical effects of the ill or dying person's choices. (Yes, you are accurate that this would be the case with respirators and the like, as well.) I believe writing a living will and having it witnessed brings home to the person what could be the ramifications of end-of-life choices. Given that dying of starvation and dehydration is a long and gruesome (at least to witness) process, compared to watching someone die within minutes of a ventilator being turned off, verbal remarks alone should not be controlling. I happen to think that Terri, if she were asked if she would want to have water and nutrition cut off over her parents' anguished objections, would have drawn the line at respirators and the like. But I swear to you -- please believe I mean this -- I am not crafting an argument out of sympathy for Terri's parents (although I surely do have sympathy for them). If Terri had draft a living will that specifically spelled out hydration and nutrition (as opposed to "life support"), I would sadly agree that her wishes should be controlling. But I find unpersuasive the evidence that Terri thoughtfully considered the possibility she would be in a near or actual PVS, and that she would want to be deprived of food and hydration in such a state. Where there is doubt about this, the assumption should be that the person would not want to be dehydrated and starved to death.