|
Post by KoNeko on Mar 28, 2005 3:00:03 GMT -5
I'm hoping to use this thread as a means of discussion and information about controversial topics. I'll change the topic when new points of argument come up. I'd love to hear what everyone's opinions are!
First up: the deal with Terri Schiavo. Her feeding tube has been removed and she's been without food and water for what, nine days or something after being in a basically brain damaged state for 15 years. Her husband said that she wouldn't want to be living this way. Her parents (and lots of protesters, it seems) are against it (but it seems that they've given up now). Without the tube she's basically going to starve to death.
What do you think? Should the tube have been removed? Should the parents have continued to appeal?
|
|
|
Post by hermoine on Mar 28, 2005 3:29:58 GMT -5
I've been trying to read all the scraps if information I can about this. I keep refreshing my Yahoo page continually.
Personally, I think that even if the court decided that the tube should have been removed, it is far worse than anything anyone should go through, especially considering that she's an innocent person who has done nothing wrong except ending up in a bed for the last 15 yrs. Seriously, even those people who have been sentenced to death die far more quickly, and less painfully(excluding those who live in states where the electric chair is still used). It's just a shot of potassium, and poof! you're dead.
Her husband stated that even though she didn't leave a will, she said she wouldn't like to live artificially, something which I didn't quite understand. I mean, the only artificial thing she's receiving is food from a tube, or maybe I missed something. And what proof is there, apart from his saying so, that she actually said those words?
Yesterday her parents did their last appeal, but on the news it said that they couldn't do any more legal appeals because they had done all they could, and they asked the protestors to go home.
|
|
Sarah
Gryffindor Head of House
Posts: 2,865
|
Post by Sarah on Mar 28, 2005 20:53:20 GMT -5
Schiavo. Schiavo. that name i recognize, and i knew something was wrong with it, but i'm not sure what exactly. can someone fill me in, please?
|
|
Isbister15
Gryffindor Alumni
Mmmm...chocolate
Posts: 5,082
|
Post by Isbister15 on Mar 28, 2005 21:56:39 GMT -5
Ice, Terri Schiavo is the woman in Florida who has been braindead for 15 years but has been kept alive with the aid of a feeding tube. Her husband claims she had stated to him (before any of this happened) that should anything terrible happen to her she would not want to remain alive in a vegetative state; she'd rather die. So her husband has wanted the feeding tube removed for some time. Her family, however, wants the tube to stay because they feel she is still a vibrant person with the ability to recover, and that she herself would want to live. Over the years there have been many different rulings on the case, but the courts finally sided with the husband and the tube was removed nine days ago.
Anyone can clarify what I just stated if they feel I left something out or was biased in how I worded it.
Personally, I think it was right to remove the tube. I understand how emotions run high on this matter but....this woman will never get "better." She has absolutely no brain activity. I feel for everyone who cares for her, but I wouldn't want to see a loved one of mine in that state, especially for so long. To me, that's cruel punishment.
There are other things about this whole situation that I find discomforting as well. Her parents have been taking in tens of thousands of dollars in donations for years without registering it as charity funds with the government. They've also placed many personal demands (like separate rooms for themselves and food items) upon the hospital which, from what I've read, have all been met because they threatened to sue if they didn't get what they wanted.
I couldn't imagine being in the husband's position. I don't know how he can go on with (though I don't like that phrasing) his life while his wife lies unresponsive in a hospital bed for years.
I don't know. I don't think I'd want to be kept physically alive if I was already gone mentally. My aunt was just in a similar position and it was just about a blessing that she's finally moved on now.
|
|
|
Post by KoNeko on Mar 28, 2005 23:36:42 GMT -5
Hmmm. I can feel this turning into an essay, but here goes:
Firstly, I want to make the distinction between active and passive euthanasia, just to clarify. Active euthanasia is where you inject/induce a substance into someone, and passive euthanasia is where you remove something (like a feeding tube) from someone. In both instances the outcome is probably death (although that need not necessarily be the intention... but this is another can of worms).
I believe that in limited circumtances *passive* euthanasia should be allowed. Considerations include, in order of importance, the presence of a living will or any documented evidence of the patient's intentions (and psychological condition when they made that decision), oral evidence of the patient's intentions, the prospect of recovery for the patient, the wishes of the patient's spouse/family/children, any material costs involved and then any other relevant policy considerations.
In this case it has been suggested that Terri Schiavo had previously made indications that she wanted to die if she was in the circumtance that she currently is in now. Further, there is no prospect of recovery (given that she's been like this for 15 years) and I think that, given the length of their relationship that Michael Schiavo may be in a better position to ascertain what Terri's intentions would have been in this situation.
I understand that her parents may also have evidence to the contrary, but if you weigh up the strengths of the husband/wife relationship and the parent/child relationship on these facts I think that in this situation it falls in favour of Michael Schiavo. Further, while I also understand that the Schindlers would want their daughter to survive, I think their opinion is a little bit clouded. Of course no parent wants to see their child die, but what parent would also want to see their child in a virtually vegetative state for 15 years?
Sidenote: Schiavo isn't going to be hungry throughout this event. Yes, her feeding tube has been withdrawn but when a patient's primary body systems shut down then that patient is usually unlikely to experience hunger. So on those facts you cannot argue that she's suffering. Additionally, I would imagine that if she was feeling any pain at all then medical staff would be able to alleviate that (e.g. morphine) so that she is not suffering in any sense when she dies.
The numerous appeals to various courts and the involvement of political figures suggests the controversy of the euthanasia debate is alive and well. However, for the meantime all I want to say is that, as a matter of policy, it is best for people to discuss what they want done if such an unfortunate event were to arise. Talk it over with your friends and family and have it evidenced in writing or something. Switching machines off and withdrawing feeding tubes are common practices in hospices and hospitals; the thing that is most unfortunate in this case is that we do not have enough evidence on Terri's part to substantiate the claims that are being made by the two opposing parties.
As for all this right to life business... if Schiavo has a right to life then surely prisoners on death row do also. Where would you draw the distinction?
|
|
Isbister15
Gryffindor Alumni
Mmmm...chocolate
Posts: 5,082
|
Post by Isbister15 on Mar 29, 2005 19:11:42 GMT -5
Well, those prisoners aren't innocent participants in their sentencing. But I'm not one of those right to life people. I'd like to state that I modified my previous post because I'd written something about Michael Schiavo perhaps missing out of a chance to have children, but I just read today that he has been in a stabe relationship with a woman for some years now and has two toddlers with her. Ko, I think I agree with about every single thing you said there. I was glad you mentioned the fact that, although technically her body will be "starving," Terri will not be feeling the effects of that. Like you, I can't understand how having a daughter in this state for so long would be more desirable to Terri's parents than letting her rest eternally and remembering all the wonderful times I'm sure they had before she fell ill. I get that they don't want to lose the ability to hold her and have her physically near them, but who is that really helping? I don't see how it can make the inevitable outcome any easier in the end.
|
|
|
Post by KoNeko on Mar 29, 2005 19:34:07 GMT -5
Hmmm, I don't know about right to life. If you give me certain issues (e.g. abortion, euthanasia, death row) I can tell you where I stand on those but I'm not overtly for one side across the board.
(I'll get onto my gripes with death row another time, but anyway...)
Hmmm, I also heard some allegations that Michael had something to hide or something (e.g. he hit Terri during their relationship, or she was privy to information about criminal activity or something like that) which is why he wanted Terri dead, so she wouldn't talk.
Also, according to some others there is a (slightly more plausible) theory that he wants to marry said other woman but can't while Terri is alive (because I think she's Roman Catholic - or at least her parents are) and so if she dies then he will be free to marry this other woman. In this case it sounds like he's kind of gotten over the whole thing, but I don't see what is morally wrong with it.
|
|
|
Post by hermoine on Mar 30, 2005 2:51:03 GMT -5
Reading through it all, you guys kinda changed my opinion. There were stuff that I didn't know, that I'm really glad you guys made clearer. Thanks.
But one thing, her brain isn't dead, so I can't see how she can't feel anything. Again I might have missed something here. Although reading another article yesterday, it said that she had a serene expression on her face, so you're right about that again Ko.
I know I mentioned death row, but please don't think that I'm in favour of it! I think it would be worse to remain your whole life in prison, rather than die and escape all that. And I didn't know that Terry wasn't feeling any pain, so...that was a pretty much unsolid comment(I don't know if that makes sense, but I couldn't remember the right words for it. Kind of like saying something without a good evidence)
I was aware that Michael Schiavo had a relationship with another woman, and it bugs me a little. Now you might say that it's my christian side retorting, or maybe it's because we are one of the only 2 countries in the whole world whose citizens cannot apply to divorce. But I rather got the impression(which of course might be wrong) that he's sort of taking advantage of the position his wife's in. I mean, Terry doesn't know what her husband's doing, or even what's going on around her(again, I'm not entirely sure about this ). Sure it's all well and good that he managed to move on and find someone to love again, but what about his present wife? Even if she has been in such a state for the past 15 years it doesn't mean he has to betray her for her lack of not knowing what's happening.
To Roman Catholics, divorce would be said to be a deadly sin, which sometimes I think is a little bit farfetched, but that's another story. He can't of course divorce her, because she can't give her consent in this. I know it is rather nasty to say, but her death would also come in his favour don't you think?
|
|
|
Post by nancy on Mar 30, 2005 18:36:55 GMT -5
In a way, yes. Maybe you could argue that he would suffer too if she died, but all things considered, I think he's way over that... But it is kinf of weird that at first he didn't mention that Terri didn't want to live in a comma forever. Suspicious, like.
The parents... well, it's like they don't want to let go. Their daughter is long gone, it's just her body that lives, and that's what they're holding on to.
|
|
|
Post by KoNeko on Mar 30, 2005 20:35:04 GMT -5
Hmmm, yeah, according to some sources he has been "over it" for a while, and he's moved on (i.e. new relationship etc.) which suggests that he is over it and will gain something when she dies (i.e. he is free to marry) but again those sources are sort of speculative...
I agree with Nicks. I think the parents just don't want their daughter to die, but come on, in my opinion she's already long gone. She's been like this for 15 years and "responding" to things like light stimuli etc. is not really what makes her Terri Schiavo.
Hermy, don't worry, brains have no nerve endings in them. (weird fact but true!)
|
|
|
Post by hermoine on Mar 31, 2005 14:36:08 GMT -5
I've just checked and Terri Schiavo has passed away. She died at 9:05am US time.
|
|
Sarah
Gryffindor Head of House
Posts: 2,865
|
Post by Sarah on Apr 1, 2005 17:17:24 GMT -5
oh...my. I'm feeling the pain of her family right about now, as well as her husband i suppose, but at least now she's in a better place. her husband has two kids and a fiancee?! What a---...nvm. how can someone just do that? i mean, sure, it's alright, but he at least needs to have the common courtesy to wait until she's passed, dont you think? and sure, 15 years is a long time(i'm just a little over 15, myself), but he should've had the respect for Terri and her family (his IN-LAWS, for Pete's sake!) and held off! Imagine what his fiancee is thinking right about now...of all the slimey, cruel things....sheesh. taking her off the tube was her [supposed] wish, correct? well, technically, not word-for-word, but its what she wanted i suppose. and it was semi-wrong for her family to go to court about it. they robbed her of living in paradise for over a decade, when she had to sit back in the hospital the whole time. can someone please tell me the state she was in? like, totally brain-dead, or could she think? control her organs, hands, bladder, feet...that type of thing? i'm kinda stuck on which way i'm leaning on this one. well, not really. the only thing wavering in my mind is agreeing with Michael, yet being angry at him for his complete disrespectfulness towards his late wife. May God rest her soul in peace. She's in a better place.
|
|
|
Post by KoNeko on Apr 2, 2005 0:58:31 GMT -5
Hmmm, I read that Schiavo was in what the courts called a "Persistent Vegetative state" which meant that she couldn't control her bowels, had no capacity for speaking and could only respond to things that didn't require brain power (like reflexes and pupil dialation and stuff like that). Basically she was just the shell of a person and there wasn't any real consciousness inside that.
Yeah, I heard she died too. You know what though, apparently Michael Schiavo kicked her parents out of Terri's hospital room a few minutes before she died... now I don't necessarily agree with what her parents said, but that's pretty low in my book. Surely the parties concerned could put their differences aside for just a few minutes so everyone that had a role to play in her life could be there when she died? I don't know but I was pretty annoyed at Michael when I heard about that.
|
|
|
Post by Lianne on Apr 2, 2005 9:26:54 GMT -5
My opinion on this matter is kind of mixed. I Do not agree that they should have starved her to ddeath. But i do agree that they could allow her to die if thats what hey thought she would want. Personally if it was me i would like to die. No one wants to be hooked to a feeding tube in a hospital you know?
I think they should have given her a shot of something, poison or whatever it is that they use to put animals down, or whatever they do. Something a bit nicer you know. i wouldnt want to starve to death, but i also love food.
I feel that they had the right to allow her to die after FIFTEEN YEARS of no improvement. No one wants to live like that.
I also HATE how they made it a huge deal over the TV. No one wants that either, and personallly it was no ones business other than the familie's and the judges business. And i believe that people are wrong fro protesting and all because going in peace should not involve protestors.
But i dont think they were wrong. I just think they could have done it in a faster way, thats all.
|
|
|
Post by KoNeko on Apr 2, 2005 21:55:15 GMT -5
Hmmm, technically Li, I don't think they could have though. Active euthanasia is where the doctors inject something like poison or something into a person to kill them. Passive euthanasia is when you take away life support type things and let the person die. There's a difference legally, because you can't kill someone, but you can let them die. So in theory they couldn't just put poison in her, but I suppose they could have pumped her full of morphine to "speed up" the death process (although I think in this case it would be questioned why they did that because she couldn't feel anything, and morphine is used to ease pain). So yeah. That's sort of problematic because it gives rise to situations like Terri Schiavo, and I can't think of a way to solve this problem
|
|