Physician Assisted Suicide

@Brent cv,

Terri Schiavo was in a permanent vegetative state, her brain severely,
irreversibly damaged. She didn't feel anything, she wasn't mentally
functioning. Check the autopsy reports. The one assertion that she was
mentally alert was that she recognized her family, and the autopsy proved
what doctors had said all along, that she was blind as a result of the brain
damage she suffered during the hur she lay not accurately breathing
initially. Her brain didn't get oxygen for an hour, and it died. She didn't
even have the ability to swallow and could not survive without a tube bypassing the rest of her body and going straight into her stomach.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,159606,00.html

There's no explanation for her intial collapse, so perhaps it can be attributed
to "God's will," and he made it impossible for her to sustain herself.
Even on a feeding tube her body was decaying within itself. It should
never have become a national circus, and the real issue is that her parents
need grief therapy. I know a girl who does that as a job, and there's a lot
of people who can't accept the death of loved ones, so the car manufacturer
or the gun manufacturer or the butcher who chopped the steak they choked
on is to blame.

6 Replies

@oleo,

oleo;9142 wrote:

Terri Schiavo was in a permanent vegetative state, her brain severely,
irreversibly damaged. She didn't feel anything, she wasn't mentally
functioning. Check the autopsy reports. The one assertion that she was
mentally alert was that she recognized her family, and the autopsy proved
what doctors had said all along, that she was blind as a result of the brain
damage she suffered during the hur she lay not accurately breathing
initially. Her brain didn't get oxygen for an hour, and it died. She didn't
even have the ability to swallow and could not survive without a tube bypassing the rest of her body and going straight into her stomach.

FOXNews.com - Autopsy: Schiavo Was Not Abused - U.S. & World

There's no explanation for her intial collapse, so perhaps it can be attributed
to "God's will," and he made it impossible for her to sustain herself.
Even on a feeding tube her body was decaying within itself. It should
never have become a national circus, and the real issue is that her parents
need grief therapy. I know a girl who does that as a job, and there's a lot
of people who can't accept the death of loved ones, so the car manufacturer
or the gun manufacturer or the butcher who chopped the steak they choked
on is to blame.

"permanent vegetative state" to me is alot different then "dead." What was the cause of her real death, starvation and dehydration. Pretty much what happens to every one when deprived of food and water whether you are conscious or not.

Quote:

She didn't
even have the ability to swallow and could not survive without a tube bypassing the rest of her body and going straight into her stomach.

So she didn't have the right to live in that state?

1 Reply

@Drnaline,

Drnaline;9164 wrote:

"permanent vegetative state" to me is alot different then "dead." What was the cause of her real death, starvation and dehydration. Pretty much what happens to every one when deprived of food and water whether you are conscious or not.

So she didn't have the right to live in that state?

Brain dead is dead. The cause of her real death seems to be unknown, since
she actually died years ago and her body was revived without her brain.

This becomes an ethical question. "Did she have the right to live in that
state?" Did she have the ability to live unassisted in that state? No. Did
she have the ability to communicate her wishes in that state? No. Did she
have wishes in that state? No. She was brain dead.

Let's look at another case around the same time. A baby was born without
a brain, and the mother was fighting to stop the hospital and her insurance
company from doing the exact same thing, removing a feeding tube. Her
child would never live without a feeding tube. Never live anything like a
human life. It had no brain. This case was brought up during the Schiavo
frenzy, but no one seemed to take a stand on it. Maybe because the argument
to let it die was based on people not wanting to pay for it. Babies are born
without brains. Should they be kept alive? They can't swallow or do anything
else. They have no brains. This isn't "unconsciousness" or a coma, they have
no brains. Human life is brain-based. Humans cannot survive without brains.
Victims of decapitation could be kept alive the same way. Should they be?

Terri Schiavo's brain was deprived of oxygen when her heart stopped
beating for over 5 minutes, and it disintegrated to liquid as a result.

Her doctors noticed the atrophy and disintergration as soon as it started happening
and began advising her husband that she would never recover. He, slowly
at that, began to accept this after getting several opinions. Her parents refused
to accept the facts. The autopsy proved her brain was liquified, as cat-scans years
earlier had indicated.

Here's a brutally funny report on the case from The Onion, that will probably
not be funny if you have the opposing view:

Brain-dead Americans Defend Brain-dead Florida Woman

0 Replies

@Brent cv,

What date was she pronounced dead by a doctor? Before or after she was starved? Brain dead is dead? What about coma's, should we kill them. there dead by your standard?

Quote:

This becomes an ethical question. "Did she have the right to live in that
state?" Did she have the ability to live unassisted in that state? No. Did
she have the ability to communicate her wishes in that state? No. Did she
have wishes in that state? No. She was brain dead.

Like how you avoided my question. I'll ask again. So she didn't have the right to live in that state?

No brain is a little different them "brain dead.

I've read that article from the onion.

0 Replies

@oleo,

Comas are not "brain dead," there's brain activity and a chance for recovery.

Did she have a right to live in that state?
Without a brain? I think human life isn't possible without a brain.
I don't think she was alive, so the question makes no sense.

Some doctors declared her brain dead. Some offered a contrary opinion.
The second group were proved wrong by the autopsy.

Did she show signs of suffering when the feeding tube was removed.
No, she couldn't and she wasn't capable of suffering.

0 Replies

@Brent cv,

Quote:

Did she have a right to live in that state?
Without a brain?

From what i've heard she was born with a brain and latter on was deprived of oxygen which gave her brain damage. So she was with a damaged not without a brain. I'll ask again.

Quote:

I think human life isn't possible without a brain.
I don't think she was alive, so the question makes no sense.

It makes planty of sense to me. I think you just don't want to answer? I'll ask again.

So she didn't have the right to live in that state?

Quote:

Some doctors declared her brain dead. Some offered a contrary opinion.
The second group were proved wrong by the autopsy.

In your opinion.

Quote:

Did she show signs of suffering when the feeding tube was removed.
No, she couldn't and she wasn't capable of suffering.

Whether she could feel it or not was there suffering? Because she gave no sign does that prove there was none? If there was no suffering why did her body die?

0 Replies

@Drnaline,

Drnaline;1432 wrote:

IMO is should be left up to the state like abortion used to be. Let the people decide for themselves. If you off yourself and it is deemed illegal. Who do they prosecute? No live body. Hopefully this is one of the things SCOTUS will hand back to the individual states.

Because of the unborn child. It is a fetus and it is alive and no one has the right to play God and decided the fate for someone else.

0 Replies

@Brent cv,

There's a lot of gray area here. Who determines that the patient is competent to make the decision to end their life? If a person is advanced in age and in pain, the patient's physician may determine they are not competent to make such a decision. How would a person make advance arrangements for such a situation? Through a living will? How could you explain the level of pain at which you wanted to die? There is no concrete measure of pain other than the patient's own description. The only solution to this delimma that I can think of is to have a legal document that would appoint someone to represent you should you find yourself in such a situation. But, man, it would really have to be someone you really trusted or they might give permission for your demise before you were really ready for it. I think the best argument I have heard against human euthenasia is that physicians may order your demise because of overcrowding in hospitals or a family has grown weary of caring for the relative and only wants relief from their burden. Humans are humans and cannot always be depended upon to make decisions that don't involve their own needs and wishes. I had a Great Aunt that lived to be 99. She outlived her daughter and when her son-in-law and grandchildren buried her they had a quick, graveside service, never shed a tear and barely let the preacher finish before leaving to get to the airport to catch their planes. I don't think I would have wanted those people deciding for me when I should be put out of my misery. But at the same time if I was aged and in a great deal of pain, I would like to have the option of assisted suicide. It is a great dilemma. :dunno:

0 Replies

@oleo,

Even living wills and "DNR" ( Do Not Resuscitate) clauses don't always work .
My mother died in an ambulance on the way to the hospital after a long illness , and the EMTs resuscitated her anyway . They said they thought she was going to recover and live longer . She did live longer --3 weeks in a coma and on tubes and breathing machines . She came out of the coma for 2 weeks after we had the plug pulled then she died in the hospital bed . In my opinion , many times the medical people bring them back just to collect more insurance money .

0 Replies

@oleo,

Or they are afraid of a malpractice lawsuit.

0 Replies

@Brent cv,

Probably both.

0 Replies

@Brent cv,

Quote:

So she didn't have the right to live in that state?

I think the question is if she has a right to live, but is she alive? Are you alive if you have no brain? Your body can continue to live, but do you think, do you feel, do you want? That to me determines wheter you are alive.

1 Reply

@oleo,

The circumstances that made the Teri Shiavo situation so complicated was the parents' staunch religious beliefs went against removing the feeding tube. They were Catholics and Catholics do not believe that feeding tubes are artificial life support. Also, Teri did not leave a living will so the parents did not know her wishes as pertains to life support because they had never spoken with her on the subject. Teri's husband and the parents also had a falling out over the money that was awarded to Teri for her care in the malpractice lawsuit. I don't guess there was anything that the two sides agreed on and the bitterness was so great that it finally garnered national attention. And, of course, then the general public started debating the whole thing and it just got totally crazy.

My opinion is that when her husband remarried he should have given custody of Teri to her parents and moved on with his life. But then the money would have gone with her and I sometimes wondered how much the money influenced what he did. I heard that most of it was eaten up by legal fees and court costs so there may not have been much left to benefit him personally. It would be interesting to see an accounting of how all that money was spent though.

1 Reply

@markx15,

markx15;9687 wrote:

I think the question is if she has a right to live, but is she alive? Are you alive if you have no brain? Your body can continue to live, but do you think, do you feel, do you want? That to me determines wheter you are alive.

Quote:

I think the question is if she has a right to live, but is she alive? Are you alive if you have no brain?

There is not a question on if she had a brain. She did. It was deprived of oxygen and you know the outcome.

0 Replies

@Doly,

Doly;9689 wrote:

The circumstances that made the Teri Shiavo situation so complicated was the parents' staunch religious beliefs went against removing the feeding tube. They were Catholics and Catholics do not believe that feeding tubes are artificial life support. Also, Teri did not leave a living will so the parents did not know her wishes as pertains to life support because they had never spoken with her on the subject. Teri's husband and the parents also had a falling out over the money that was awarded to Teri for her care in the malpractice lawsuit. I don't guess there was anything that the two sides agreed on and the bitterness was so great that it finally garnered national attention. And, of course, then the general public started debating the whole thing and it just got totally crazy.

My opinion is that when her husband remarried he should have given custody of Teri to her parents and moved on with his life. But then the money would have gone with her and I sometimes wondered how much the money influenced what he did. I heard that most of it was eaten up by legal fees and court costs so there may not have been much left to benefit him personally. It would be interesting to see an accounting of how all that money was spent though.

Gotta agree with that.

0 Replies

@Brent cv,

Quote:

There is not a question on if she had a brain. She did. It was deprived of oxygen and you know the outcome.

My mistake I had understood that her brain was fisically damadged beyond any measure:

Quote:

Her doctors noticed the atrophy and disintergration as soon as it started happening
and began advising her husband that she would never recover. He, slowly
at that, began to accept this after getting several opinions. Her parents refused
to accept the facts. The autopsy proved her brain was liquified, as cat-scans years
earlier had indicated.

1 Reply

@markx15,

markx15;9692 wrote:

My mistake I had understood that her brain was fisically damadged beyond any measure:

You are correct as far as he brain being damaged. It was able to maintain regular life funtions except regular digestion. From what i remember.

0 Replies

@Brent cv,

It is hard to define the line of life and death in these cases, but here is a scenario: You are in this state of half-death, and no scientific instrument we have today can definatly say if you are mentaly alive or not, would you prefer to be kept corporally alive not being able to move on because other people are chaining you to your body, or would you prefer to be free of it all?
To be able to create a law concerning this I would propose that a certain time be set for observation and prayer, if we can't do it then God can, if he doesn't then it is not meant to be.

0 Replies

@Brent cv,

If it were up to me? In that situation i don't think i'd have the choice, just take what was delt to me. Death, half death, neither would i have to worry about in that condition.

0 Replies

@Brent cv,

Are you of the opinion that after death you lose consiencness, and vapor out? If you could decide for yourself what would you decide? If there is another life waiting for you out there, and your life on Earth has been almost left behind except for this connection to your body that someone is too afraid to break, wouldn't you want to continue your life rather than slowly decay on a hospital bed while your friends and family slowly deplete themselves emocionally and financially trying to sustain you?

0 Replies

Physician Assisted Suicide

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know