|
Post by Al Truest on Mar 24, 2005 20:26:23 GMT
A story that has sparked sharp controversy from the state of Florida all the way to Presidential and congressional politics, is the sad fate of Terri Schiavo. Should she be kept alive or starved to death? The reports say that she has been in a constant 'vegative state' for 15 years - which appears, to me, to be erroneous. Liberals and conservatives alike seem to have problems with their logic. The left are willing to starve her to death. The right won't broach the subject of death with dignity through euthanasia. The Christian Science Monitor interviewed me about this subject just yesterday. It seems to be a topic that we have many problems with. The Oscar winning film Million Dollar Baby, as inspired by the book, apparently tapped in to the moral and personal issues systemically inherent within. We all seem to treat it as an anathema outside our political persuasion. What do you think?
|
|
|
Post by saloldgal on Mar 24, 2005 23:28:20 GMT
Based on what I have seen (videos, pictures, etc.), she doesn't seem to be in a "vegetative state." She really reminds me of my adoptive aunt, who (due to the circumstances of her birth) was born blind and severely brain damaged. My grandparents raised her as a member of the family and she died when she was about 20. Even though she was in the same condition as Ms. Schiavo (IMO), she was not a vegetable. She was responsive, but didn't respond to just any kind of stimulus. If you talked to her in the right voice, or touched her in an enjoyable way, or played music she liked (and she definately had preferences - she LOVED Tom Jones!), she responded with smiles and laughter. If you dealt with her as if she was a vegetable, she responded like one. So if the neurologists think Ms. Schiavo is in a vegetative state, I have to wonder how much that has to do with the ways they are dealing with her.
Assuming that she is in the same state my aunt was in, I would have a hard time "pulling the plug".
I can definately agree that someone in that state doesn't have much to live for. However, given that she reportedly isn't pain, I don't think someone else should be allowed to decide that her life isn't worth living (or maintaining) any more. If we let people make those kinds of decisions on behalf of those who can't speak for themselves, who gets to decide whose life is worth living and whose isn't?
I can also agree that large amounts of money are probably being spent to maintain her life. But that is actually part of the reason I am suspicious of this whole campaign to have her feeding tube removed. There must be a number of people/institutions who stand to gain financially (directly or indirectly) if it happens. In particular, if there had never been any money at stake, it would be easier to trust her husband's motivations and accept his word regarding the statements he says she made.
One thing about this case that seems to bother me more than some other people is this: Sometimes husbands stop loving their wives (and vice versa) for reasons that aren't even that important. Her husband has a pretty important reason not to love his wife any more; for many years she hasn't been the person he knew as his wife, and he has moved on. But it is very rare for a parent to stop loving a child. Her parents still love her because, even in her infantile state, she is still the child they knew. So I feel almost certain that her parents' motives are pure and inspired by love, but not at all certain that her husband's motives are either of those. I don't understand why so few of the judges involved haven't given this more weight when evaluating her husband's claims against her parents'.
Taking all of this into account, my sympathies lie with her parents. Obviously, if there was a living will stating her wishes, or if she was in pain, or if the videos/pictures we have seen are deceptive, or etc., I might hold a different view.
This case has really revealed to me the importance of having a living will. It has also made me consider changing my will to assign this kind of decision to a member of my own family rather than to my husband. It isn't that I think my husband would make the wrong decision, but I do think any choice made by him would be questioned more than the same choice made by a member of my family.
|
|
|
Post by Xanadu on Mar 24, 2005 23:37:50 GMT
A story that has sparked sharp controversy from the state of Florida all the way to Presidential and congressional politics, is the sad fate of Terri Schiavo. Seems to be on the top of the headlines everywhere. Personally, I don't think it ever should have gotten this far. I have no right to comment on the deeply emotional decisions of a family I have never met. Should she be kept alive or starved to death? The reports say that she has been in a constant 'vegative state' for 15 years - which appears, to me, to be erroneous. I have been trying to find that out myself. Seems to be the point of contention that no one will make a clear comment about. If she's responsive, then she's not without value. But until it is agreed upon by a panel of doctors through extensive research... I think everyone should let the family work through this privately. Liberals and conservatives alike seem to have problems with their logic. The left are willing to starve her to death. The right won't broach the subject of death with dignity through euthanasia. Again, this shouldn't be about her. If there needs to be legislation (which should only be that perhaps at 18 an adult designates a legal guardian in these matters, to be updated as needed) then workon legislation. Her life shouldn't be a political battleground. This seems vaguely similar to the abortion issue, which I also believe no one other than the involved parties should have a say or opinion about. The Christian Science Monitor interviewed me about this subject just yesterday. Why was the CSM interviewing you? Should I be worried? It seems to be a topic that we have many problems with. Yeah, everyone needs to be meddling in others lives, while their own could use a little work. Did you know that so called "supporters" travelled and missed work and school for this? Worry about your own affairs. I'd hate to be in the situation of the husband. Hasn't he been through enough by now as well? The Oscar winning film Million Dollar Baby, as inspired by the book, apparently tapped in to the moral and personal issues systemically inherent within. Even coherent patients can decide to end their suffering... We all seem to treat it as an anathema outside our political persuasion. What do you think? I'd like to say that more investigation needs to be done to finally state her condition, and unanimously decided. If it is found that she will never be responsive and/or improve, then it should be ended. I'd want that, and I'd make that decision if there was no hope. I can only base this on my personal opinion, which is without experience. Everyone else should realize that their opinions are only that, and the legislation should allow for each to make that decision privately. By the way... you think this would work better under the Control Boards. It's quite political for just other topics. And, I was working on this before Sal posted, so I haven't read her comments yet.
|
|
|
Post by Xanadu on Mar 24, 2005 23:46:28 GMT
One thing about this case that seems to bother me more than some other people is this: Sometimes husbands stop loving their wives (and vice versa) for reasons that aren't even that important. Her husband has a pretty important reason not to love his wife any more; for many years she hasn't been the person he knew as his wife, and he has moved on. But it is very rare for a parent to stop loving a child. Her parents still love her because, even in her infantile state, she is still the child they knew. So I feel almost certain that her parents' motives are pure and inspired by love, but not at all certain that her husband's motives are either of those. I don't understand why so few of the judges involved haven't given this more weight when evaluating her husband's claims against her parents'. It has also made me consider changing my will to assign this kind of decision to a member of my own family rather than to my husband. It isn't that I think my husband would make the wrong decision, but I do think any choice made by him would be questioned more than the same choice made by a member of my family. I'd have to say that I can agree with most of what Sal has said, except fo this last part. This has encouraged me to discuss this with my husband, not that he didn't know my thoughts about these matters already. You can't take away the rights of the spouse in the matters legally. I'd personally fight legislation on that front. I'd give my life and place my life in his hands. But, I suppose that all depends on the manner of your relationship. Some would choose their family... others not. Again, I think this comes down to facts that are far more personal than any legislation would allow. If the parents want so much for this to go on... should they be asked why. Parents have the hardest time letting go, and always see themselves as parents, whether that's correct or not. Seeing that they probably still view her as a child they raised may be part of the problem. It can fulfill a desire to care for her again. Perhaps this is really all they have. If so, then let them assume all legal, emotional, and financial responsibility.
|
|
|
Post by saloldgal on Mar 25, 2005 2:07:06 GMT
You can't take away the rights of the spouse in the matters legally. I'd personally fight legislation on that front. I'd give my life and place my life in his hands. But, I suppose that all depends on the manner of your relationship. Some would choose their family... others not. So are you saying that the law prevents a married person from making someone other than their spouse responsible for this kind of decision? I wasn't aware of that. When we made out our living wills, our attorney had us explicitly assign this responsibility to each other in them. I guess that led me to believe that alternate arrangements were possible. In any case, I wouldn't be changing our arrangements out of mistrust for my husband; I would be doing it in hopes of preventing a repeat of the Schiavo case. It just seems to me that, when these situations arise, spouses (even those that have been completely devoted through the worst times) are more vulnerable to accusations than close blood relatives would be.
|
|
|
Post by Neo Stella on Mar 25, 2005 2:17:24 GMT
You guys seem really torn by this issue. It is your humanity that makes it difficult. A mechanism (a robot) would have no problem deciding. However, because there are so many feelings involved, it makes it diffilcult to decide what is right.
Eventually something happens, usually it is the thing that most people shy away from. That said, I feel for all parties. Being human is such a challenge, when met helps the world to move forward. All we can do is wrangle with our conscience and hope we do what is best for all concerned.
|
|
|
Post by Al Truest on Mar 25, 2005 2:19:37 GMT
Based on what I have seen (videos, pictures, etc.), she doesn't seem to be in a "vegetative state." She really reminds me of my adoptive aunt, who (due to the circumstances of her birth) was born blind and severely brain damaged. My grandparents raised her as a member of the family and she died when she was about 20. Even though she was in the same condition as Ms. Schiavo (IMO), she was not a vegetable. She was responsive, but didn't respond to just any kind of stimulus. If you talked to her in the right voice, or touched her in an enjoyable way, or played music she liked (and she definately had preferences - she LOVED Tom Jones!), she responded with smiles and laughter. If you dealt with her as if she was a vegetable, she responded like one. So if the neurologists think Ms. Schiavo is in a vegetative state, I have to wonder how much that has to do with the ways they are dealing with her. Before this story was so widely reported, I only read accounts of her condition. After seeing the video footage my opinion began to change. This woman has cognitive power and emotional response. Hardly the comatose state I was led to envision. As would I under the prevailing circumstances. And I believe in death with dignity. Especially when a living will allows the patient's wish known upfront. But to allow someone to starve to death is cruel and inhumane. Even with pain medication, the possible subsequent bewilderment and the sheer horror of the anticipation of certain death by Ms Schiavo and her parents is unthinkable. Why should we allow this! If removing the feeding tube is certain death, then end it with medication! I cannot believe the hypocrosy in these actions.
|
|
|
Post by Al Truest on Mar 25, 2005 2:35:00 GMT
Seems to be on the top of the headlines everywhere. Personally, I don't think it ever should have gotten this far. I have no right to comment on the deeply emotional decisions of a family I have never met. Nor do cigar smoking congressmen. Whatever the call, why do we abide death by starvation? Agreed. Liberal or conservative politics have no business in these matters. Bio-ethical experts should have independant input in policy and review matters. A national board for last resort oversite should be implemented. No. I haven't 'jumped ship'. It was a random street interview. It was also part of my motivation for starting this thread. It drove home to me how big this story had become. That's why I say politics and ignorance, and these terms are interchangeble here, have little place in this debate. Hence my preference for a neutral, and enlightened, panel or review board. Maybe. Let's see what kind of legs the thread has. I may move it later. However, I wish it was less political and more about humanity instead or ''morals'' I get so damn sick of ''moral issues'' I sincerly appreciate the thought and effort from each of you on this. We must be diligent lest we become dead inside.
|
|
|
Post by Al Truest on Mar 25, 2005 3:12:11 GMT
All we can do is wrangle with our conscience and hope we do what is best for all concerned. I believe we must do more than hope, Our conscience is no match for the rights of individuals and their families destiny's. We must acquiesce to their rights and sanction 'qualified' experts to mitigate battleground issues. I don't want call-in radio show results determing policy.
|
|
|
Post by Xanadu on Mar 25, 2005 5:28:06 GMT
So are you saying that the law prevents a married person from making someone other than their spouse responsible for this kind of decision? I wasn't aware of that. When we made out our living wills, our attorney had us explicitly assign this responsibility to each other in them. I guess that led me to believe that alternate arrangements were possible. I'm sorry, Sal. I just re-read what I had posted and I was misleading. I probably meant we shouldn't, as in we can't legally remove the rights of the spouse in exchange for the parents. And that I would fight any legislation for that case. I make no assumptions that a familial relationship is any more profound than any other. Basically, the deciding factor should be the adult in question. In the Schiavo case, if her husband doesn't want the responsibility any longer, why not allow the parents to decide. Let's consider a horrifying prospect of legislation. Say legally one must have their spouse or eldest parent as the designated guardian. Where would that leave a homosexual relationship? A partner is dying of AIDS, and has a strained relationship with family, and the life partner cannot make a decision based on the legality of their relationship. I wouldn't want the government to decide those matters for me. I also agree with her condition. I was lead to believe this would be a mercy, but she does share something with those she sees. And starvation is not the answer. Why let her linger? If there was chance of her living off the machines, then I can see the point. I just love how the "right" use "their God" to manipulate the situation in their favor. They say "God" wants her to have life, and it would be a sin for man to end it.... but didn't "God" already take it from her and technology has allowed her live as long as she has? Didn't man interfere in the beginning? Again, remind me as to why the "Bushies" are involved? Oh, right, this is Florida. Why is this not just a medical matter, a legal problem of custody between the husband and parents? Speaking of custody, I have an issue from today's news.... to be inserted. Check back. OK got it: www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20050324-0008-ca-soldier-burialdispute.htmlThey'll fight over you, even after your gone too... apparently.
|
|
|
Post by saloldgal on Mar 25, 2005 6:02:33 GMT
I just love how the "right" use "their God" to manipulate the situation in their favor. They say "God" wants her to have life, and it would be a sin for man to end it.... but didn't "God" already take it from her and technology has allowed her live as long as she has? Didn't man interfere in the beginning? Again, remind me as to why the "Bushies" are involved? Oh, right, this is Florida. Why is this not just a medical matter, a legal problem of custody between the husband and parents? I think that representatives of the religious right, and those that cater to them, have a (poorly) hidden motive for trying to influence the outcome of this case, and it has nothing to do with the actual people or issues involved: they see cases like this as "wedges" in their quest to restrict abortion rights. There are obvious parallels to be exploited, and they do their best to exploit them.
|
|
|
Post by Al Truest on Mar 26, 2005 1:17:43 GMT
Sometimes I am overcome with how stupid government policy can be. Also, it seems that religiousity and selfish or superstitious sentiment prevade these policies. I plan to be cremated. Then all who want a piece of me can have it.
|
|
|
Post by Al Truest on Mar 26, 2005 16:27:08 GMT
Sometimes I am overcome with how stupid government policy can be. Also, it seems that religiousity and selfish or superstitious sentiment prevade these policies. As this related to the Schiavo situation, we must ask why is it O.K. to starve her to death but not to euthanize her. We are killing her just the same. Yet God, I guess we think, won't hold us accountable if just let it happen. Supertitious religiousity will not save our souls. Whether or not you think she should live or die; if you believe that starvation is morally preferrable over mercifully setting her free, then you, IMHO, are f_cking wrong!
|
|
|
Post by Adey on Mar 27, 2005 17:07:13 GMT
I have nothing to contribute here, but commend you all for the sensitivity & compassion of your debate..
|
|
|
Post by Al Truest on Mar 30, 2005 21:58:59 GMT
CBS news erroneously posted an internet scoop that Ms Schiavo had passed away (this was Monday I believe), with her husband Michael at her side. They of course, yanked it. But, the story was already written with apparent political or social slant. I am no conservative. as you know, politically. But why must there be lies when persuing a course of reporting news? Can we liberal minded folks stop shooting ourselves in the foot. Is honesty too much to ask?
|
|