Posted on 07/28/2011 12:52:18 PM PDT by wagglebee
On Saturday the Daily Mail ran a poll with the question, “Should ‘minimally conscious’ patients be allowed to die?
As of this writing (on Saturday), 29% said No, 71% said yes.
I have to wonder though, if the people who clicked Yes had given much thought to the form of the question. Something I learned as a lobbyist paying close attention to various pieces of legislation is to always look very closely indeed at the pages of the bill that give the definitions of terms. What does it mean to be “allowed to die”? And what, exactly, are we talking about when we refer to “minimally conscious” people?
I’ll help here with some research I have done into the question at hand. In the cases I have studied closely, that of Terri Schiavo in the US and Eluana Englaro in Italy, neither woman was a) terminally ill, b) on a respirator c) sick in any way. Both were brain damaged, but the damage did not impair any of their vital bodily functions. In both cases, the only care they needed was ordinary nursing care, bathing, clothing and, most crucially, feeding. Both of them could have lived a normal lifespan if these had been continued.
In the case of Terri Schiavo, her family made it public knowledge that she was not “in a coma,” not in a “vegetative state”. In her case, the public was shown video and photographs of Terri awake and responsive to the people and stimuli around her. In the case of Eluana Englaro, although we were shown no photos, it was revealed to the public that she was not ill, was not on a respirator, was not in a coma and required only food and hydration via a feeding tube. In the US, the delivery of food and water via a tube is classified as “medical treatment” that can be refused by a patient or (and here’s what killed Terri) by a patient’s guardian. In Italy this is not the case, but the artificial delivery of food and water was not specifically dealt with in law. However, in both countries, “assisting a suicide” is an offense, as is homicide.
We are all aware of the media frenzy, including a great deal of misdirection, surrounding the case of Terri Schiavo. In Italy, there was also a loud uproar and the media paid a great deal of attention to the case, particularly towards the end of Eluana’s life. In most cases, the media consistently used this phrase: “allowed to die,” a piece of deliberate and conscious misdirection, that I maintain is maliciously motivated to promote the cause of legalised assisted suicide and euthanasia, a favourite cause on the left in Europe and the US.
In parliaments too, the phrase is consistently used as a type of pacifier by legislators trying to lift prohibitions on assisted suicide. It sound quite natural and harmless doesn’t it, and it plays on the perfectly moral principle that patients who are near to death from illness should be able to refuse extraordinary, aggressive or painful procedures if there is little chance that they will significantly prolong life.
If a cancer patient is in the last stages of the disease and all normal measures have been taken, everyone agrees that it is not only perfectly licit but in fact desirable to provide palliative care and allow the patient and their loved ones some quiet time before the end.
But the question asked by the Daily Mail above doesn’t mention “terminally ill” patients. It doesn’t specify that a person who is potentially to be “allowed to die” is about to do so anyway and is being plagued with aggressive extraordinary treatments. All it says is “minimally conscious” and “allowed to die”.
Let’s examine the following scenario. A healthy person has been drugged into minimal consciousness. He is strapped to a gurney and wheeled into a room and left there without provision for food and water.
Now, ask the following question: Is he being murdered or is he being “allowed to die”?
Now, let’s examine another scenario. A healthy person is in a car accident and is rushed to the hospital with a severe head injury. It is determined in the hospital that although she remains otherwise healthy and undamaged, her brain function is never going to be what it was and she will require help with feeding, dressing and bathing etc., very likely for the rest of her life which, barring future illness, should be a normal span. She is taken to a nursing home run by nuns who are happy to take on the duties of caring for her for the rest of her life. This includes delivery of food and water via a stomach tube.
If the nuns then removed her food and hydration tube and refused to care for her and she died, should they be liable for charges of neglect causing death? Perhaps even homicide?
Is it “allowing a person to die” if he is helpless and is refused food and water?
I wonder how the British public would be answering a poll question like the following:
“Should vulnerable patients be deliberately starved and dehydrated to death when their lives are deemed to be worthless by a hospital ethics committee?”
Perfect question!
If we have the ability to give someone nutrition and hydration (which we do) and refuse to against their will, it is MURDER.
Most of us will eventually die — whether or not we’re “allowed” to do so.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
end of life ping
I personally watched this happen to a step relative. It was murder. And the children were in some kind of medical field, too. They didn’t even let the person say goodbye to his dog.
Excellent article.
What the hell kind of question is that? When I was about 8 years old, I slipped and fell on an icy sidewalk. I was knocked completely unconscious for a period of time. I was later diagnosed with a concussion.
Did I meet the standard of consciousness for being allowed to die?
If I may, I’d like to add a couple more comments about so-called quality of life decisions: When I was young, I thought health and vigor and learning and happiness were what life was about, and I wanted nothing less! I am old now, and I know that life is about all those things and more. The old fellow who toddles along on his way to meet friends for a glacial game of checkers may not be particularly healthy or energetic, but he likes his life and would not voluntarily be deprived of it. Our expectations of life change with our circumstances.
*******************************
Simply perfect.
“Kill” is the term they neglected to use.
That’s an unfair quiz.
I should get to choose being bludgeoned to death or at the very least dismemberment. I am pretty sure those were ObamaCare options.
How come they never ask: Should “minimally conscious” Congresscritters be sent home?
Yes the question is meaningless. It doesn’t say anything about the hypothetical patient’s condition let alone the patient’s desire in the matter. Stupid poll.
So true. I did consider putting in “blood-loss trauma or smashed to a bloody pulp?” Options from one of those other “choice” questions.
Another deceptive use of words which has bothered me for years is “end of life case.” How many times did the media refer to “the end of life case of Terri Schiavo?” It was a right to life case. They use the phrase “end of life” when referring to people who are not dying, when they’re discussing their right to life.
Thank you both for your well spoken points. You both made posts well worth reading, again and again.
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.