Posted on 05/29/2005 6:40:54 PM PDT by CHARLITE
After my brother died, both my parents realized that eventually I might be the one making medical decisions for them(as now, with my brothers death, I was their only child)....they were very clear about what they wanted and did not want...they wanted no ventilators, and no feeding tubes, no extra measures taken to keep them alive, in what they considered an unnatural condition...that was their wish, and they relied on me, to fullfill their wishes, should it ever come to that....
And it did come to that for both of them...when my dad was suffering with cancer, he ate and drank far less than he did when he was well...but he ate and drank when he felt like it...his GP wanted to insert a feeding tube, and was really adamant about it...my dad, very much in his right mind, heard the doc, and told him in no uncertain terms "NO, no feeding tube for me"...the doc felt dad needed more nourishment, and fluids, and was willing to ask me, with my medical power of attorney, to override my dads wishes, and do as he, the doc wished...Dad, looked at me, and begged me not to have a feeding tube inserted...I followed my dads wishes, not the doctors...dad ate and drank when he felt like it, and we offered him several meals and drinks a day...when he felt hungry he ate, and when he was thirsty, he drank...and he died, as he wishes, with no ventilators, and no feeding tubes...
I then had to take care of my mom, who had Alzheimers...I made her three large meals a day, and three snacks a day, and also lots of Ensure, for extra calories...this worked for a few years, until her Alzheimers got worse, and she ate less and less and drank less and less...by this time she was bedridden...the visiting nurse, was not happy with her eating and drinking habits, and she, like dads GP, practically insisted that my mom have a feeding tube put in...I knew, mom did not want that, she ate when she wanted and drank when she wanted...food and drink were offered to her, several times a day, and when she wanted, she took it, and when she refused, I encouraged her to try to eat and drink, but never tried to force her...and mom, like dad, also died on her own terms, with no feeding tubes, and no ventilators...
Now, my whole point here, is that my dads doc, and my moms visiting nurse, were both quite willing to override both of my parents wishes respectively, and tried to coerce me into doing what they wanted, not what my parents wanted...I was really quite appalled at their behavior...Thankfully, my dads GP was not in charge of my dads case, his oncologist was, and the oncologist agreed with me, that we must honor my dads wishes...my moms visiting nurse, became quite obnoxious toward me and my mom, for not following her wishes for a feeding tube, ,and I had to call the Nursing agency and request a different nurse, one who would respect my moms wishes...
Perhaps both of my parents would have lived a little longer with a feeding tube in, but that was not their wish, even when they were geriatric, ill, and given the opportunity to have a feeding tube...yet, some of medical professionals involved in their cases, were quite willing to overlook my parents wishes, and tried to substitute their own wishes...and that is where I draw the line...if a person refuses any medical treatment, or refuses food or refuses liquids, they should not be coerced or forced to accept what they dont want...
I have also worked for many, many years in nursing homes...I have taken care of hundreds and hundreds of residents over the years, most of them elderly, tho some are young people....and I have seen maybe 10 feeding tubes, and most all of them in the young people...the elderly, we feed them meals in the dining room...and yes, it is time consuming, but that is part of their care..those who can feed themselves do, and for those that cannot feed themselves, we feed them, by hand...we try to get them to try a little bit of everything on their tray, we try to get them to eat most of the food, and drink most of the liquids...but we never force them...
This is just my own personal experience with this subject of feeding and hydrating the ill, the elderly, the disabled...its about 'choice', and I would never want anyone but my own loved ones and myself, involved in such choices and decisions concerning them or me...it is no one elses business...
All that being said, in Terris case, I dont think Michael Shiavo was the right person to make such decisions for her...I do believe the Schindler family, should have been able to care for her as they wished...
Precisely. If a person's wishes are firmly and clearly stated, as in the case of your father, and surely your mother, then there isn't a problem.
Terri's case was fraught with huge inconsistencies, and the FACT that Michael had a personal interest in having her out of the way should have automatically disqualified him as her legal guardian, right from the moment of her "accident."
Char
LOL
Char
But there is a problem, even when people do make their wishes known...had I not been stronger, and as stubborn as I was, I might have let myself be coerced by medical professionals who did not have my parents wishes as their primary concern...their primary concern was their own wishes...had I been a little weaker or a little less stubborn, I might have let myself be swayed by the doc and nurses wishes, and since I had the medical power of attorney, there would have been no problem, with me getting those feeding tubes put in...thankfully, I had my parents wishes as my primary concern, and acted in the way they wanted me to...
And there have been those, even here on FR(tho I cannot now remember who, or exactly what they said), who would disregard such wishes to not have a feeding tube, as they said something to the effect, that if one refuses a feeding tube(because they are physically unable to eat and drink), they are clearly mentally unwell, and therefore their wishes could be gotten around...good grief....here we go...people with no business doing so, poking and proding around in other peoples family matters...
We must be careful....as I said it is all about choice...if one wishes to have no ventilators, no feeding tubes, no extraordinary means taken, then they should have the right to not have any of that, no matter what the doctors, or nurses, or anyone else thinks....on the other hand, those who wish for ventilators, and feeding tubes, and all extraordinary means taken should also have their wishes honored, and have all means taken to keep them alive, if that is what they wish....
I just object to someone with no interest in anothers family, trying to insert their wishes into that family dynamic...and that happens all too often, on both sides of this question...
I'm only focusing on Terri's situation; NOT on the entire topic of "who should choose" in potential euthanasia situations.
Char
Would you please add me to your ping list? Thanks.
There used to be a right to not be killed yet the activist judiciary altered that concept, perhaps irrevocably, with the Roe dehumanization of the unborn, placing the liberty and pursuit of happiness for the woman above the inalienable right to LIVE once alive, in one sweeping act of judicial activism disenfranchising an entire class of alive human beings. And it has caused the slaughter of millions!
One of William's strongest points (and worthy of discussion) concerns the right of family and loved ones to make decisions for family members when refusal of treatment is desired. So long as the imperial judiciary imposes its power, transcending the Constitutionally defined powers of the individual, a right outcome in cases like yours and that of Terri is not guaranteed, rather the outcome is at the whim of an ever changing, now ill confined judicial system. THAT UNCONFINED JUDICIAL PROCESS IS THE DIRECT OUTCOME OF LIBERALISM ERODING THE VERY BRANCH OF OUR SYSTEM DESIGNED TO BE THE MOST FIXED AND UNWAVERING, dependent upon constitutionally defined parameters!
Because such requests are so corrupting to the caregivers that follow them, there is and will continue to be a push for death in such situations.
The idea that we will all get to choose what we want will NEVER be a reality. The push as long as people are allowed to "choose" suicide in certain situations, will always be for death. How naive and foolish to think otherwise.
As always, nice to speak with you, and thanks for your kind comments...
I did not mean to suggest that taking in food and drink are extraordinary measures...however, many, many people do consider having a feeding tube to be extraordinary measures...now, obviously you do not...but that is your opinion....not an opinion that all would agree on...many people have survived for many many years, decades even, on feeding tubes...I have taken care of such people, and have seen firsthand, how having a feeding tube has enchanced their lives, ,and allowed them to continue in life, to become what they wish, to bring love and joy to their families and their friends...
But for those folks, such as my parents, who are at the end of their lives, suffering with terminal diseases, the use of a feeding tube, at least to my parents, seemed absurb, cruel in that it would prolong their suffering, and it was something they did not wish for their last days...if you were their child, instead of me, would you have forced them to have a surgical operation to insert a feeding tube, and then force them to be fed through a tube which they did not want in the first place...
The notion that my parents corrupted me, their caregiver, because they refused to have a feeding tube is your opinion, and your opinion only, and quite frankly, its an opinion which I hold in low regard...my parents loved me, I loved them, they never corrupted me in any way, and I loved them enough to honor their wishes, and felt no corruption about it...dad died of a stroke, even tho he was dying slowly from cancer, and mom died of a heart attack, even tho she was in the last stages of Alzheimers...neither died of starvation...they just did not want someone inserting a tube into them surgically, and they had the right to refuse it, no matter what you or anyone else thinks about it...
No, not all of us will get that chance or the opportunity to chose in what manner we spend our last days on this earth...but it certainly is not up to you or anyone else, as to how I or my loved ones will spend their last days...
When my older boy was dying, his choice and my choice for his last days, was that he die peacefully at home, in his own bed, surrounded by his family and loved ones, and minus all tubes, and machines...it was not to be...he died in a hospital, plugged into tubes of every sort, having a ventilator breath for him...not the death any of us would have chosen, yet that is the way it happened...
It is never foolish to strive to have the kind of death we would wish for ourselves, and it is never foolish to have the kind of life we wish to live up until we do pass on...I would rather be foolish, and choose for myself what I want, rather than relegate those choices to someone who has no love or friendship for me...
It appears we just disagree, ,and that is fine, because you have no say in my life or in the life of my family...its when strangers start interfering that I object...
All that being said, Terri should not have been taken off that feeding tube, ,but rather given back to those who did really love her, and let them make the choices for her, choices, made in love...which is what we should all have....
Thank you for a very intelligent and very principled post.
I made the very same point, and someone accused me of "playing God" because I would allow an individual to make that choice. I argued that if God allowed an individual to reach that point, it wasn't "playing God" not to insert a tube, and yet you attacked me for making that point.
There is a right to refuse treatment in this nation but it is being eroded by imperious judicial activism.
To the extent that the right to refuse treatment is eroded by judicial activism, it will be because "pro-lifers" insist that refusal of treatment is "playing God." I've been arguing for the right to refuse treatment throughout this thread. I'm glad to hear that you also support the right to refuse treatment, but your sudden support of that right seems inconsistent with some of your other statements.
My point was that sometimes a person's health fails so that he or she can no longer eat or drink. That's not something that's in my control. I doubt that it's in your control. Who's control is it? Well, if one is going to believe in God, then one has to accept that it's under God's control. God may or may not act to reverse the situation, but it didn't happen without God's notice. God has His own reasons for doing things. I may not like them; I may not understand them; but they aren't under my control. If people of faith find these statements so offensive, I'm sorry, but I still believe them.
I try not to generalize too much about people of faith. I've been in churches, and I've met many people for whom I have the highest regard. In many cases, they are fundamentalists who would be seen as crude and spiteful by much of elite society, but I've seen in them a real love for their God and for others. I didn't exactly fit in these places, and there were subjects that it was best just to avoid. However, they really were examples of the love that they preach. On the other hand, I've met church people who've fully justified foul feelings. They are selfish and manipulative. They are often ignorant of the Scripture that they claim to believe. They are intent on power to vaunt their own pride rather than the message that they preach.
Whether these modern pharisees take me seriously or not is irrelevant. As I have time, I'll be on these threads as a voice for those who do not believe in making these decisions subject to government interference. Many in the conservative movement do not believe in taking away the right to refuse treatment. They don't see that position as "playing God" but instead see the opposite position, forcing a tube down the throat of those who don't want it, as a sign of a true God complex. When someone from outside reads these threads, I think it's good for them to see that not all conservatives want government to decide when and what treatments individuals will accept. These self-proclaimed arbiters of our decisions need to see some opposition occasionally so that a few of them will escape the delusion that all conservatives agree with them.
Whether I have any credibility with you has also become irrelevant. You had the chance to either make your argument against my statements or just let them go. Instead, you retreated first into saying that I just wasn't worth it and then into saying that I have no credibility. You've had two chances to challenge the actual statement but have twice retreated into insults and personal attack. That's a favorite dodge of people who don't like what they hear but are too stupid or too lazy to post a coherent argument. It's a quick way to cast an insult without bothering to think about what's been said. I had always thought better of you, but I live and learn.
Post #21 was more than adequate to address your absurd comment. I shant bother to prick your ego further.
To: WFTR
>>>"...I shant bother to prick your ego further."
Interesting choice of words there, touche
balrog, Someone might mistake you for making death threats against a judge, and use that to try to shutdown or badmouth FreeRepublic.com
But you weren't in favor of Terri going home with her parents, so obviously you must have meant:
" Terri's case was fraught with huge inconsistencies, and the FACT that Michael had a personal interest in having her out of the way should have automatically disqualified him as her legal guardian, right from the moment of her "accident." "
Excellent points, Charlite! Even the first court appointed guardian ad litum, stated Michael Schiavo had conflicts of interest and shouldn't be making Terri's decisions. Felos and Greer got rid of the person who didn't support their position of death to Terri.
Please add me to your ping list. :)
In other words, you still don't have any intelligent reply.
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.