Posted on 04/02/2005 3:04:50 PM PST by Halls
"I'll take the doctor's word over that of a nursing supervisor...
I'm not at all certain that's a valid choice."
Doctors are like managers in a big company. They do not see the day to day. They read charts and prescribe drugs. Nurses have the contact and do the work.
Doctors mostly sign orders and prescriptions.
Exactly!
Scumbags. Just like the Nazis, those nurses can participate in starving people and rationalize it.
Apparently, it hasn't.
According to my post #128, the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas justified its termination of nutrition and hydration, by ordering a hospice to withhold such, by stating it was authorized to do so according to this:
Noting that Fiori's life was without content much less quality, the court ordered the nursing home to end all nutrition, hydration, medication, and other life-sustaining procedures. The court based its decision on a best interests standard derived from a report of the President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research.
When I googled that in, this is a website it took me to, some with available documents. THEY ARE VERY LONG.....one is about 180 pages in length....obviously, I haven't read them....but, if the Court in Pennsylvania is stating they get their authorization to withhold nutrition and hydration, due to the President's commission (George H.W. Bush), to CONGRESS. Therefore, somewhere that language to withhold nutrition/hydration is in one of those documents, maybe more. There are letters in at least a couple of them addressed to then President George H. W. Bush and members of Congress were involved with this, as well.
This Congressionally mandated group was formed in 1978, succeeding the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. It worked independently from January 1980 to March 1983.
* Defining Death (1981) (pdf format) * Protecting Human Subjects (1981) * Whistleblowing in Biomedical Research (1981) * IRB Guidebook (1981) * Compensating for Research Injuries (1982) * Splicing Life: The Social and Ethical Issues of Genetic Engineering with Human Being (Nov 1982)(pdf format) * Making Health Care Decisions (1982-83) (Nov 1982) (pdf format) * Deciding to Forego Life-Sustaining Treatment (1983) [NOTE: NOT AVAILABLE AT SITE] * Implementing Human Research Regulations (1983) * Screening and Counseling for Genetic Conditions: The Ethical, Social, and Legal Implications of Genetic Screening, Counseling, and Education Programs (Feb 1983) (pdf format) * Screening and Counseling for Genetic Conditions: The Ethical, Social, and Legal Implications of Genetic Screening, Counseling, and Education Programs (Feb 1983) (pdf format) * Securing Access to Health Care (1983) (pdf format) * Summing Up (1983) (pdf format)
Considering flash mobs are used for everything from protests to infiltration....
I wouldn't lend weight to >>>Schindlers' supporters weren't very nice to patients' relatives.<<<. We have no idea who was doing what there.
Or do you actually think it was any of Terri's supporters that was doing the juggling?
Certainly. What some people fail to grasp is that working with such people takes a lot of hours over a lot of days/months/years. Nurses and nursing staff can do this. Doctors, by the nature of their job, generally cannot.
Although I don't know how one could prevent abuse of the system by the submission of "phony" PVS cases, one thing I'd like to see would be a rule that would require that, before a patient could be declared PVS, they'd have to be examined for some period of time by doctors who would be paid if, and only if, they could provide a certain level of proof that the patients in question weren't PVS. Although the exact means of proof would vary from patient to patient, a typical method of proof might be to hook the patient to a polygraph and show them a series of randomly-sequenced photographs at 30 second intervals. The photographs would be chosen by the doctor as falling into two categories, but the sequence would be random. The doctor would not be shown the sequence of photographs but would receive the polygraph record. The doctor's job would then be to determine which photographs were in which class by examining the polygraph. If the doctor could do this with an accuracy level significantly above chance, that would prove the patient wasn't PVS.
Although one would have to ensure that the system wasn't abused by doctors who had phony PVS patients admittd for testing (so they could reap the rewards for finding them non-PVS) such a system would be much better than the present one insofar as doctors would have a strong incentive to find proof that patients weren't PVS.
Every single one of those nurses had to knew very well, that whether Terri was PVS or not, was the central point in determining whether she could be killed. AND THEY REMAINED SILENT, JUST TO KEEP THEIR JOBS!
Was that you 'juggling' at the hospice?
/sarc.
When I read about what an angry, rude mob we were, it makes me laugh. WHAT A BUNCH OF LIES. The local papers are still saying we were loud. Our signs spoke volumes so we didn't have to. There were very few outbursts but considering the circumstances, who can blame someone for venting????
I have found out the hard way that hospice care varies tremendously. I have had family members under hospice care in certain states, where the hospice workers were truly angels on earth. But I have also had the misfortune of running into very poorly run hospices that did not even provide the most basic care to ease a patient's suffering.
Generalizing that all hospice workers are wonderful, caring, nurturing people can make for some very unfortunate surprises at the worst time--when a loved one is dying.
I was being a tease about the juggler.
I just wanted you to post that here because there are a few flies buzzing around here. Wanted your comments here :)
Interesting, when I googled that title, here's what came up:
Dr. Cranford has specialized in the field of clinical ethics since the early 1970s. During this time, he served as a consultant to several national commissions on right-to-die issues. These included the President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research, primarily the reports on "Defining Death" and "Deciding to Forego Life-Sustaining Treatment".....
"Defining Death" and "Deciding to Forego Life-Sustaining Treatment are both in that list I provided in my post #144. "Defining Death" is available in pdf.
There are dots waiting to be connected, IMHO.
you have freepmail.
Bump!
This comment is obviously nothing more than the reflexive twitching of a skull full of grey cells and some sparks of electricity.
Very, Very interesting!!!
In agreement with you.
What was it someone wrote about Terri's family not being nice to the families of the patients?
I, for one, would want someone to be VERY NASTY to someone in my family who was trying to kill me.
Just because those people don't accept euthanasia as murder doesn't stop it from being murder.
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.