Posted on 08/03/2005 10:38:25 AM PDT by tutstar
Terri schiavo's controversial death is old news now, but many of us are still grappling with the end-of-life questions it made us ask. The Florida woman's case propelled millions to consider living wills.
Not so fast, caution many Christian ethicists and right-to-life groups. Living wills are more complex than they appear and alone don't necessarily guarantee death on your terms. Even if you already have a living will, you might want to know why some critics think these documents may be dangerous and others see potential ethical problems. You may not want what you signed.
Some critics go so far as to see the recent rush to sign living wills as a victory of the pro-euthanasia movement.
Flip Benham, director of Operation Rescue, lamented that the Hemlock Society had to be "dancing with glee" as, during the Schiavo debacle, Christian leaders were telling us to have living wills drawn up. Want it from the horse's mouth?
(Excerpt) Read more at lists.christianitytoday.com ...
Even the Christian Medical Association's members are split on whether it's ethically imperative to maintain people in a persistent vegetative state indefinitely. But Stevens says that they all agree on this point: "If you take tube feeding out of PVS patients, you always offer them food and fluids by mouth. Otherwise it's passive euthanasia. If you offer it and they don't take them, the disease has killed them. If you don't offer them, you've killed them."
my comment...That statement pretty much says it!
ping
Though you might be interested in this article.
OTOH..... we've had people literally dying of repeated aspiration pneumonias, yet refuse tube feedings...and you know what?....that is there choice......
Smart people will have a Healthcare Power of Attorney document to ensure there is no doubt who will speak on their behalf regarding healthcare decisions if the time should come when they cannot communicate themselves.
I still don't understand how the judge could order that Terri have nothing by mouth when that is a felony under state law.
I don't think there is going to be a 'perfect' solution but I don't want someone determining my 'quality of life' and using it to end my life.
I think there should be more 'qualifiers'in the state law. IOW you would have to be on true lifesupport equipment -and- a feeding tube in order to be a candidate for having your food taken away. I know people who are tube fed and well and under the state law of Florida they are receiving a 'life prolonging procedure'.
They do mention that and more in the article. It's a good of source of info imo.
The fact is that they no longer offer a feeding tube or liquids to dying elderly patients.
I read that when I was doing some research, and article I found said some hospices will not take a patient with a feeding tube.
I can tell you from personal experience. Living wills have no value where the elderly are concerned, especially if Medi-care is involved. It is purely a triage system.
I believe it! 2 yrs ago I wouldn't have believed it. The article also has a link to info that most states don't require physicians to honor advanced directives. That is scary. The politicians hype it up to get our wishes in writing then we find out that that isn't good enough.
It's worse than just not using a feeding tube or hydration. They often introduce a morphine IV drip "to ease the passing."
The truth is that the morphine speeds the passing, by preventing the patient from struggling to breathe.
You say that like it's a bad thing. I wouldn't have it any other way for myself, nor anyone I love. We will all die, Eva.... Medicine can sometimes prolong life, and sometimes only ease pain. There is no glory in prolonging pain for a dying patient.
I think she is talking about hastening death.
What she's saying is that sometimes, when a patient is dying, Morphine does both. The choice is for the patient to live 3-5 more days, in some level of pain, struggling to breathe, struggling with their disease, without Morphine, or 1-2 days if given Morphine and made comfortable. The Morphine takes them out of consciousness, and in turn, the body perhaps does not fight to live. I've seen this. I wanted to stop the Morphine long enough to have my mom know I was there with her, but I was told, and came to believe, that to bring her in to consciousness would be very painful for her. My wants were selfish, really.
If we're talking about a patient who is "struggling to breathe" at best, death is already inevitable.
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying, the morphine hastens the death by suppressing the autonomic nervous system.
And, as HairOfTheDog explained, I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.
I don't know anyone who would choose to die in pain if there were an alternative... even if that choice meant they would die sooner.
We're talking about terminal patients with no good outcome. It even applies to Terri's case, once the ruling had been made and death was the only outcome, who would choose lingering in avoidable pain for her? I hope the Terri-bot crowd will come, in time, to realize, that this issue is much more complex than just the one standard they wish to apply to all cases. I do not want them coming in and demonizing anyone in my family who makes the end of life decisions for me or my family.
It's a very bad thing if the diagnosis is wrong, as it was in the case of my mother.
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.