Posted on 04/02/2005 3:04:50 PM PST by Halls
That depends. If someone's kidneys have failed, ceasing to give them water will not cause dehydration. Indeed, giving too much water may hasten death as the body will no longer be able to get rid of it. Unfortunately, I suspect that in some hospices the staff don't really care about whether discontinuance of food and water will be in a patient's best interest.
Nutrition and hydration are ordinary means, not extraordinary means.
Here's a "will to live" that you can be comfortable with, at the end of this story.
The Will to Live
When Marjorie Nighbert entered a nursing home after having a stroke, she did not expect to be starved to death, but that is what happened when she became a victim of her own "wishes."
Like many people, she did not want her life to be prolonged when death was imminent. So Nighbert created a durable power of attorney (DPA), in which she gave her brother control over medical decisions in case she could not make them for herself. And according to the family lawyer, Nighbert said she did not want a feeding tube if she became terminally ill.
When Nighbert fell ill the nursing home followed the orders of the DPA and denied her food and water for two weeks. But then something unexpected happened: She asked to be fed. A court battle ensued, and the court ultimately upheld the nursing home's decision to deny Nighbert food and water. According to the judge, Nighbert was not competent to ask for food, and to give her food would constitute "extraordinary means."
Nighbert died on April 6, 1995.
In recent years we have heard a lot about the "right to die." Many organizations, such as Choice in Dying, and even President Clinton, promote living wills as a way for people to control when and how they will die. Yet, as Nighbert's story illustrates, nothing could be further from the truth: Many people sign living wills without realizing that they may be signing their own death certificates.
The inherent danger in the living will is that the terms in the document may not mean what a person thinks they mean or they may be dangerously vague. Webster's Dictionary defines "terminal" as "of or in the final stages of a fatal disease."
Similarly, the average person thinks that "terminally ill" means that death cannot be prevented even with medical treatment. But in 24 states, for the purposes of the living will, a person is legally in a "terminal condition" even if her life could be saved by medical treatment, as long as she would still have a permanent disability of some kind. In fact, many living wills stipulate that "life-sustaining" treatment, including food and water, will not be administered if the person is in a "terminal" condition, even if the condition is non-fatal.
The purpose of any medical treatment is to sustain, if not prolong, life. Unfortunately, many people who sign living wills may be completely unaware that they are agreeing to their own starvation.
The issue at hand is not about keeping people alive at all cost simply because the medical technology is available; the issue is about protecting people who are being denied medical treatment and being starved to death merely because they are ill. What kind of message does this send to the infirm? Instead of creating a society where the sick are treated with compassion and care, we are creating an atmosphere of death.
To prevent people from suffering the same fate as Marjorie Nighbert, the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) has created the Will to Live. This differs from the living will by being based on a general presumption for life. It is also much more detailed to avoid ambiguities that could later be interpreted in favor of death. Currently, the Will to Live is complete for fourteen states: Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, South Dakota, Washington, West Virginia and the District of Columbia. The other states are in various stages of preparation and will be completed soon.
---->If you would like a Will to Live for one of the states mentioned, send a business size, self- addressed, stamped envelope to:
The Will to Live Project
419 7th Street, NW, Suite 500
Washington, D.C. 20004.
Anne E. Brennan
Reprinted from The American Feminist, Winter 1995/1996
Sorry, I wasn't sure how much you knew, so I figured there'd be no harm in posting a brief summary of some of the "dots" we've all spent the last 2 weeks "connecting".
Thanks for the new info. I've added it to my research file.
For me, this is not over. I want to see Terri get some justice. I don't want her killers to be able to sweep this all under the rug and get away with what they've done.
you have FReepmail
There's really no conflict. The nurses say she could indicate discomfort and other feelings, the doctor says she couldn't talk. Not being able to talk and being in a PVS are two different things. The woman, Terri, didn't belong in a Hospice anyway, she wasn't terminally ill. She was only dying when her food and water were cut off, which of course it was when she was admitted, but then was resumed shortly thereafter.
.
But the diagnosis of PVS is based on observation, not brain imaging. Besides, even if the CT scans shown on various sites are authentic, then she still had a fair amount of brain that wasn't "liquid". She could very well have been using what little she had left. Only a PET scan, and possibly a few other types of tests, would show if those remaining portions of her brain were active. (exclusive the brain stem, which was obviously active, since she was breathing, digesting food, and performing other "automatic" functions controled by the so called "Lizard Brain", although Lizards have more brain than that, but not much more)
I think the point being made was that Terri did not fit the *legal* definition that was used to allow her to be starved to death, ie being in a "persistent vegetative state" and not the rightness or wrongness of that law.
My guess? They noticed. "Mum" is the word.
Everyone who's been following the issue at all knows that Terri Schiavo was not on "life support machines", as the term is normally understood, but rather had a "feeding tube". A change to Florida law, made after she was put on a feeding tube (similar in concept to what the pope had in his last days, but not in detail) defined a feeding tube as "artificial life support", but then, by the general definition in the law, so is a baby bottle or even baby food on a spoon held by an adult.
Romanov
Since Apr 2, 2005
Begone Troll.
I'm going on memory, but I think Carla Iyer worked with Terri about 1995 to 1996, in that area.
Yes, Terri deteriorated without the rehab that she had the first 3 or so years.
It was a crime to deny her rehab, many people much worse off can benefit from it.
if an 82 yro woman is ready to die, so be it....she is not in her 20's or 30's or 40's......she has lived a long life....far differant than a young person....
secondly.....a nurse or a doctor or any professional has as their ONLY obligation the best care for their patient...
its a patient-client relationship...
it's not a philandering husband- nurse/doctor relationship...
IOWS.....the professional has as his/her first obligation above all else to serve the patient and the patient's needs...that is all....
how anybody can change protocal and do the bidding of some manical husband is beyond me....
I don't think so. The Pope himself decided to stay in his apartment when he took a turn for the worse...but he did have a feeding tube to supplement what he could manage to swallow.
Terri, nor anyone without a conflict of interest representing her interests without serious conflicts, never got to make that decision.
I googled the term. The hits refer to otherwise terminal patients, not death by dehydration.
Not that I don't believe it. Given the vociferous nature of some asserting that "up to hundreds of people are starved to death each day," it may be true. But I've yet to find an article or statitistics directly on that point.
There have been many such cases, usually involving Seventh Day Adventists or other groups that believe that blood transfusions are a desecration of the body. And yes, the state does sometimes step in over the objections of parents, in such cases.
bttt
"It took Michael a long time to consider the prospect of getting on with his life," wrote Jay Wolfson, a court appointed guardian for Terri, in a December 2003 report to Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. "He was even encouraged by the Schindlers to date, and introduced his in-law family to women he was dating."
Sure. All he had to do to "get on with his life, was to ask the court that her parents take over as Terri's guardians, and then divorce her, letting her parents and siblings take care of her.
How do you know that all of it was dead. Have you seen the PET scans?
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.