Terry Shiavo and the Sanctity of Life...

[stauburn]

In my best explaination..with help.

Brain death- Absence of cerebral responses to light, noise, motion , pain, relfexs, muscle ativity, crainial nerve reflexs, spotaneous respirations. Tests to verify brain death include EEG's , an angiogram to test for absence of cerebral blood flow, apnea test ( removal from ventilator for up to 3 min to check for any spontaneous respiratory effort) and a caloric ice test which is squirting ice cold water into the patients ear canal to see if there is a reflex that cause your eyeballs to move side to side

Vegatative state- It is a chornic condition that is the result of a severe brain injury. You can be in a coma for a while then return to an awake state but with a total lack of cognition. The higher functions of the brain have been permantly damaged but the brain stem remains intact so the patient maintains normal respiratory efforts and blood pressure. Patient also may have involuntary lip smacking, chewing and roving eye movements

My source is from Critical Care Nursing: a Holistic Approach 7th edition

I hope that this helps you

Techno.. I know that She isn't on a ventilator , I was just trying to but Kane physically in her place. You cannot be medically paralyzed without being on a ventilator because you cannot breathe.

p.s the federal court upheld the ruling.

 

[rmcrobertson]

ANOTHER court decision, last night, says to leave things alone. That makes twenty-two times this case has been to court--different judges, venues, levels--and twenty-two times it's been decided.

I heard lawyers for the parents, and the parents, and all sorts of Bible-thumpers, saying all day yesterday that all they wanted was, a) a Federal-level hearing, to make sure her Constitutional rights weren't being violated, b) a chnace to ensure that she got the same appeals a death row inmate would have.

She did. Again. The parents are appealing this 22nd decision to the Circuit Court. It seems clear that they couldn't care less what the law says--just keep going till you get what you want, who cares who gets hurt.

She's not on life support? OK, fine. Then she'll be feeding herself, cleaning herself up, curing her own pneumonias, bed sores, infections, doing her own physical therapy from now on. This has all been done for her for what? twenty years now? if that's not life support, what is?

This woman died years ago. This is ghoulish.

 

[Brother John]

I've looked into this some and really thought about it.
By one doctor's report her cerebral cortex has 'liquified'. I, personally, don't consider her alive. Her lower neural synapses are firing...sure. Those from the medula oblongata.... but she is not in any sense 'aware'...by the reports of the doctors that have worked with her for a long time. Those same doctors say that there is ZERO chance of her coming out of it. (Liquified seems pretty darn permanent to me)
I'd say that removing the tube is:
humane
sensible
and
moral

I don't think it should have gone FEDERAL! Wasn't there like 21 different hearings on this case, all of them saying to remove the tube. I'd think that any sensible Federal judge would look at this and not have to think very long... leave the other 21 judgements 'as is'.
Bush overstepped 'states rights' I think, something I thought our party was rather big on.
Oh well.
Just my thoughts.
Your Brother
John

 

[Feisty Mouse]

This is a terrible case.

Terrible because, for political reasons, tons of people (and legislators) outside of the family have been dragged into this affair. Terrible because a woman who only has a viable brainstem has been kept alive for 15 years. 15 YEARS. Terrible because she is not being allowed to die.

No-one is screaming "kill her!", BTW - they are saying, "Why aren't her husband's wishes - and her own - being respected and honored? It's HER LIFE (or was)."

As to brainstem and reflexes....

It is a devastating thing to have the hope that your loved one is "still there" when you see a reflexive movement. Smiling, etc. The same kind of reflexive movements are seen in young babies. Unfortunately, these reflexes are not what a hopeful viewer interprets them to be. If a (young) baby smiles at you, you interpret it as happiness, as closeness, etc. But when infant reflexes have been examined, infants will "smile at" anything and nothing. It is a reflex, uncontrolled.

Because this poor woman has reflexes left does not mean she can hear or process her loved ones. With only a brainstem left (like an ancephalic baby, who will die soon after birth), she can breathe, swallow (I think), her heart can beat.

This is inhumane, and cruel.

 

[Brother John]

This is a terrible case.
This is inhumane, and cruel.

Agreed

THIS is the Crux of it I think:

No-one is screaming "kill her!", BTW - they are saying, "Why aren't her husband's wishes - and her own - being respected and honored? It's HER LIFE (or was)."

That's just it. Govt. shouldn't mess w/peoples lives that much, not like that. It's HORRIBLE.

It is a devastating thing to have the hope that your loved one is "still there" when you see a reflexive movement. Smiling, etc. The same kind of reflexive movements are seen in young babies. Unfortunately, these reflexes are not what a hopeful viewer interprets them to be. If a (young) baby smiles at you, you interpret it as happiness, as closeness, etc. But when infant reflexes have been examined, infants will "smile at" anything and nothing. It is a reflex, uncontrolled.

I can't even come close to fathoming that Horror!!!!! I really Feel for the parents and can see why they'd feel the way they do. I can't imagine the pain and the impossible position they are in. But it should be left to the decisions of Terry and her husband.... which have been determined time and again...
end it.

It is awefully wrong that this has blown up like this.
I'm on the side for protecting life and supporting EVERYONE's right to life....PERIOD. I can see the point of those who argue to keep her alive, I sympathize with their sentiment.
BUT: That's not life. She's not alive and she's not going to be again. What they are looking to do is to stop her physical organism from lingering further.
Your Brother
John

 

[Phoenix44]

It's beyond terrible...it's terrifying. The radical right government has finally broken down all barriers between the separate powers intended by the framers of the constitution, and invaded the most intimate of personal situations between a husband and wife.

The message here, incidentally, is that even if you've written an advance directive and appointed a health care proxy, you cannot be assured your most personal wishes will be be respected. If the government doesn't respect the relationship between Mr. and Mrs Schiavo, and the legal appointment of her husband as guardian, they will not respect your meaningless contracts either.

 

[Brother John]

It's beyond terrible...it's terrifying. The radical right government has finally broken down all barriers between the separate powers intended by the framers of the constitution, and invaded the most intimate of personal situations between a husband and wife.

The message here, incidentally, is that even if you've written an advance directive and appointed a health care proxy, you cannot be assured your most personal wishes will be be respected. If the government doesn't respect the relationship between Mr. and Mrs Schiavo, and the legal appointment of her husband as guardian, they will not respect your meaningless contracts either.

THat's pretty 'dramatic' there Phoenix44.
I disagree with the extreme conclusion you draw, but hey... to each his/her own.
Also: If memory serves, though I agree their wishes should be respected, I don't think that they had any form of 'advance directive' or living will at all.
that's one of the hang-ups.

Your Brother
John

 

[Ray]

....and all sorts of Bible-thumpers, saying all day yesterday that all they wanted was....

I think it's wonderful that you have the right to your opinion; and the right to strive {within limits} for what you believe is right. I know that you, in spite of your language, would accord the same rights to others.

...The parents are appealing this 22nd decision to the Circuit Court. It seems clear that they couldn't care less what the law says--just keep going till you get what you want, who cares who gets hurt.

How many courts upheld the legality of slavery before it was abolished in the US? It's a good thing for citizens to be able to appeal, even if they lose every time...it confirms the message and the rulings; and it lets us take another look at what we do (as a society and a nation).

 

[Deuce]

I can't imagine the pain that both the husband and the parents are going through at this point. I can see both points of view and can only try to put myself in their positions. I think the husband should ultimately have the final say, especially if there were agreements made before-hand with his wife.

I mean this poor guy has probably spent many sleepless nights contemplating the decision to take her off the feeding tube long ago, only to have it prolonged with fighting with the parents and court decisions, etc. This has got to be hell for the guy. He's trying to get some closure, make a hard decision based on his wife's wishes and move on with his life, but is unable to.

And the parents are still clinging on to what appears to be a very small and inconceivable thread of hope for their daughter, and I can't say that I blame them. Nor do I blame the husband for his decision. It's hard to say what one would do in this situation unless one was in this situation. I think it's BS that the federal governemnets is involved and BS to deny the wishes of the wife and the husband. Prolonging it is just making it so much harder on everyone invloved.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Not being polite on this one.

Listen up, Ray: this woman is DEAD, in every meaningful sense. She's been examined by more than many doctors: they all agree. The case has gone and gone and gone through the courts: they all agree. The husband has stuck by his wife and his principles: he's been clear and consistent about what should be done--which by the way is his decision, legally and traditionally in these cases.

You are supporting federal interference in private, personal decisions that are fairly serious--and interference, I might add, that is being pushed by Protestant fundamentalists and so-called "right-to life," groups. "Bible-thumpers," is exactly right. The Catholic Church has opposed removing the feeding tube--to my knowledge, they haven't been in court, they haven't been picketing and sending hate mail.

This is grotesque. You are militating for keeping a dead body, "alive." So, YOU go do the care. YOU pay for it. YOU tell all the poor kids, and sick people, that it's fair to divert the resources THEY need to keep a woman's body with no hope of recovery.

 

[Tgace]

The parents are appealing this 22nd decision to the Circuit Court. It seems clear that they couldn't care less what the law says--just keep going till you get what you want, who cares who gets hurt.

As they are only concerned about not letting what they probably still consider their "baby girl" die (regardless of if thats whats best or not), I wouldnt be too hard on them. Its a sad situation all around and injecting our venoms of various types (political,personal, etc.) into it isnt the "solution" IMO.

 

[Flatlander]

Not being polite on this one.

Listen up, Ray: this woman is DEAD, in every meaningful sense.

We are on the same side of this issue, but it seems that we share a position based on very different justifications. It matters not to me in any sense what this woman's physical condition is or was; only that her choice is being usurped. It doesn't matter to me that her will to die (as stated when she had the faculty to do so) is being denied by family or government, simply that it is being denied at all.

In much the same way as a pregnant woman has the right choose what to do with her own body, so too did this woman have the right to choose what to do with hers. In this case, let it die.

If it can be amply demonstrated that it was indeed her will to die under these conditions, what possible justification is there to deny her that now? There isn't one. There simply isn't.

 

[Tgace]

This should be an issue approached with sympathy and understanding because on either side we have people who (apparently) love this person and are trying to do what they think is best for her. That mixed in with pain, not wanting to let go, and other emotions I hope I never have to experience being a husband and father myself. People arguing and grinding their political axes over this issue is more grotesque to me than either a parent not wanting to let go, or a husband believing its time to...

 

[Tgace]

We are on the same side of this issue, but it seems that we share a position based on very different justifications. It matters not to me in any sense what this woman's physical condition is or was; only that her choice is being usurped. It doesn't matter to me that her will to die (as stated when she had the faculty to do so) is being denied by family or government, simply that it is being denied at all.

In much the same way as a pregnant woman has the right choose what to do with her own body, so too did this woman have the right to choose what to do with hers. In this case, let it die.

If it can be amply demonstrated that it was indeed her will to die under these conditions, what possible justification is there to deny her that now? There isn't one. There simply isn't.

For the sake of discussion, where does suicide fit into that philosophy? Let them jump? (a little facetious there )

 

[Flatlander]

For the sake of discussion, where does suicide fit into that philosophy? Let them jump? (a little facetious there )

Were you to jump in front of a bullet to save a stranger, should I hold you back, preventing you from doing it, because you are my friend?

 

[Tgace]

Were you to jump in front of a bullet to save a stranger, should I hold you back, preventing you from doing it, because you are my friend?

Thats more "sacrifice" than "suicide" IMO. What if I wanted to jump off a bridge because I "just couldnt take it anymore"? Should the police intervene? Not that this situation really mirrors this, just seeing how far the "its your body and you can do what you want with it" philosophy goes. :asian:

 

[Flatlander]

Should the police intervene?

IMO, only if suicide is actually against the law in that jurisdiction, or if they fear that it may create a potential hazard to motorists travelling beneath the bridge. Otherwise, it would be appropriate for people who care about the one with suicidal inclinations to attempt to discourse with them in order to express their love and try to convince them otherwise, perhaps to seek counselling. Out of love for that person. As far as that goes, though I'm aware that it is in fact against the law in some jurisdictions to commit suicide, I think that law is unconstitutional.

Is it not an infringement on my rights to force me to live through physical or mental agony if my preference would be to not?

 

[Tgace]

Its not "against the law" per se, here. I can "force" (physically) a suicidal person to go to the hospital for a mental evaluation. Where they can be held by doctors legally for a considerable time. Personally I think its in the best interest of society to not just "let" people kill themselves "out of hand" because there are many people (like teenagers in "angst", and people going through breakups) that are not making rational decisions.

Far more people kill themselves for "emotional" reasons than for "physical" (illness, this case, etc.) reasons.

ps: It is against the law here to assist a person committing suicide.

 

[Flatlander]

Well, that's certainly part of the problem with the whole debate, really. At what point can we say, "Mr. X was or was not being rational at the time of the decision"?

I do agree though, Tom, that it is important that for society as a whole, some form of objective opinion needs be given in order to validate the idea that "this is really what they wanted, all consequences of the action were considered rationally".... know what I'm saying? But how do we standardize such a thing? Beyond that, what position do we take in the interim until such a process is defined? We either sit on the side of individual liberty, or as property of the State.

 

[Tgace]

Not to get thrown in with the "right wing, religious extreme" but I do believe that life should be valued over death even to the point of telling others that they cant kill themselves. In situations like this and in terminal illness cases, I can be convinced otherwise. In plain old "personal issue" suicide..no. Ive had to "clean up" after numerous people who couldnt see past what was going on in their lives "at the moment".