Posted on 04/02/2005 6:21:27 AM PST by rhema
Would you favor it if the government suddenly quit feeding and giving liquids to the political detainees being held at Guantánamo Bay, because they had become an expensive nuisance? Or would you take to the streets to protest against the viciousness of it?
Would you be in favor if one of our state governments decided to starve to death its prisoners because they had become too expensive to house? Or would you be demonstrating at prison gates or in front of the Capitol -- objecting to the inhumanity of it?
If you believe it would be inhumane and vicious to starve terrorists and prison inmates to death, what about that utterly defenseless woman in Florida named Terri Schiavo, who died Thursday?
How can it have been good policy and good humanity to starve an innocent woman to death, while it's bad policy and despicable humanity to do it to prisoners?
Some "no-thinkums" will protest, "It's not the same issue!" Oh, isn't it?
Some years ago the Florida Legislature decided that if someone is being kept alive by "life-support measures," didn't leave a living will, and the family is divided over whether to "pull the plug" or keep the person alive by life-support equipment, the state courts could hold hearings and a judge could decree what shall be done.
Most folks thought it was a good policy.
It has become a disaster, in fact, which is what always happens when men and women think they are God.
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
I knew I had a ping to me buried somewhere!
Terri ping! If anyone would like to be added to or removed from my Terri ping list, please let me know by FReepmail!
I don't think you read my reply. Okay, let me add to it for more clarification. No one's feeding tube should be removed, nor any other source of hydration and nourishment, until the person dies. No one should be allowed to remove a patient's feeding tube, period. Like I said, I am not referring to heart/lung machines, ventilators, or anything else that does the work that an organ should be doing.
Oh, and Robert? I would make sure that not only did your feeding tube stay in place, you would receive all the therapy possible to improve your condition. Your friends, family, and clergy would be welcome to visit you any time they wanted to. You'd enjoy fresh air, tv, music, and pictures on the walls. Robert, you may be a pain in the ass, but you're a living human being who deserves to be treated with respect :)
Even if it's in writing?
Well, I disagree.
Greer's error was to discredit the testimony on the basis that, in his mind, the conversations (both with mom and with friend) had to have taken place when Terri was 11 years old.
Again, I'm not arguing that the case turns on this. While I think Greer erred in finding Terri's intent to the standard of clear and convincing, my comment was on a different subject. To wit, that the forum is better served when evidence is laid out fairly, with at least passing mention that the evidence is not unequivocal. Give the readers some credit and let them make up their own minds. It makes FR a better place.
I wouldn't go that far. If someone's feeding tube becomes clogged or infected, it would be entirely proper to remove it (and replace it). And if someone starts eating well enough without a tube as to render it unnecessary, I'd see nothing wrong with removing it so as to avoid any possibility of future infection.
Well, after 1982, Quinlan was alive and off the respirator. What would there be to disagree about actual removal? The point being, Quinlan's parents expcetd Quinlan to die from removal, and that is what bothered Terri. At least that is how I would interpret the comments.
No matter. Greer found that Terri made the comments when Terri was 11. And even if she made them when she was 18, he wouldn't change his finding of fact.
That's where living wills are dangerous. No one foresaw the day when nutrition and liquids would become "life support". I always thought that a living will would be a good idea. If I were terminal, I wouldn't want them to resuscitate me. If something should happen, and I lingered breathing on my own, let me be. Feed me, water me, and medicate me, but don't kill me by starving me to death. Oh and for God's sake, give me a decent blanket. The ones at the hospital wouldn't keep a hamster warm.
Not only do average Americans now need to speak lawyerese, but they need to learn how to decipher Clintonese.
So be careful when you say "in writing", because a feeding tube is now in the same category as true life support. Once again, I'm talking about machines that do the work for the organs that failed.
Oh, you are absolutely correct. My mom's was initially capped off, then removed entirely. Luckily, she didn't suffer any infections while the tube was in place. How about permanently removed to deliberately bring about death due to starvation and dehydration?
I'll remember that for future arguments :)
Correct. But one would not use the present tense to describe it. One would use the past tense.
In Judge Greer's 2000 court order (did you see it?), he states that Terri's friend quoted Terri using the present tense when discussing the unplugging of the respirator. Twice.
That led Judge Greer to conclude that the statement couldn't have been made in 1982.
Terri was bothered by the fact that the parents were going to disconnect the respirator. That means the conversation must have occurred prior to 1976.
According to Terri's friend's testimony, Terri was using the present tense, not the past tense. Terri was not commenting about the respirator already being disconnected -- just the fact that the parents were considering it.
Comprende?
I do understand your argument, but it does not paint an unequivocal timing of Terri's utterance(s) being when Terri was 11.
That fact can spin both ways. Even after the respirator is removed (no harm, no foul), a person can still express disgust that the action was taken, because the actor was intending harm. Comprende?
The question of removing the feeding tube is bogus, since the real question should be one of denying food and water (Terri would have died about as quickly had the tube not been removed; perhaps a little longer if she avoided the initial infection, but not much). The real statement that should be made is this:
The purpose of food is to prevent starvation and malnutrition. The purpose of water is to prevent dehydration. The provision of food and water shall not be considered futile if it achieves these objectives. The provision of food and water may be considered futile when, and only when, denying it would not cause the patient to die any sooner or less comfortably than would supplying it.
If someone has a 4" hole in their stomach, feeding them--whether by mouth or g-tube--isn't apt to be very useful unless or until the stomach is repaired. If someone is in the last stages of dying from cancer and is apt to die in the next hour, giving them their next scheduled meal would likely not be very useful (if they don't die within a few hours, though, giving some water would likely be appropriate; if they live longer than that, they should get some food, too).
If they do, then you're correct. Some people may not include the artificial life support provided by a surgically implanted feeding tube as "life support".
What would they call it, I wonder?
Lol, it's going to take me a while to craft a "will to live". You've brought up very good points. Terminal cancer can't be fixed, but a bullet wound can be, referring to a 4" hole. Nutrition and hydration can be hooked up via IV. When a person is dying, and I mean on death's door, water should never be denied, but I see your point about nutrition.
But of course. And one would use the past tense in describing the removal, si? Saying something like, "It bothered me that the respirator was disconnected".
But Terri didn't say it that way. She used the present tense, according to her friend. Something along the line of, "I can't believe her parents are considering the disconnecting of the respirator".
Why am I not connecting with you here? Seriously. I thought I was very clear.
Totally unrelated example ... one might say "I am disgusted with Hinkley's attemt to kill President Reagan," today, and it makes perfect sense, even though the attempt was years ago.
But Terri didn't say it that way. She used the present tense, according to her friend. Something along the line of, "I can't believe her parents are considering the disconnecting of the respirator".
Yes, and if that comment was made while they were watching a movie, then the comment is made in the frame of time reference of the movie. "I can't believe Al Capone is going to [future tense] order a Valentine's Day massacre."
I'm not sure, but I think there are certain terminal renal conditions where administering water to the patient would be harmful (because there's already too much water in the body and the kidneys can't get rid of it). In conditions such as that, I would see nothing wrong with 'denying' water.
I know what living wills are, but I've never seen one. I would call it, do not deny me nutrition or hydration, whether by mouth, IV, or G tube. Give me medicine and a lot of blankets, because you idiots keep these rooms as cold as a meat locker.
Most people, including me, picture life support as machines keeping a body alive, where there is zero brain activity, no natural heart beat, or renal failure, etc. Time to educate the public.
There was a story about toddlers with feeding tubes. These children are victims of the "failure to thrive" syndrome. Many of these kids were preemies, and didn't bottle or breast feed, therefore they didn't develop the swallowing instinct. Before feeding tubes, these babies wasted away from starvation. They now have a chance. Where there is life, there's hope...
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.