Holly Lisle has an intelligent and interesting slant on the Terri Schiavo case over on her blog. It's worth reading. Click here for the article. I hope the federal judge follows Holly's reasoning.
The whole thing is tragic. I don't trust her husband at all. His behavior is creepy. I don't understand why he won't allow her parents to care for her. He's already living with another woman. He could easily get a divorce and move on. Instead you have this dogged determination to end her life. It makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up.
By the way, let me state: I don't want anyone turning off my machines! I want to live until I can't. But I hope no one ever has to make that decision for me.
I also like Holly's essay. Like TECH, I don't understand the husband's actions. Some of his decisions and statements show an unholy zeal in pursuing her death. I hope the judge removes him as her guardian.
And it's not about respecting her wishes. We don't know what her wishes were. It's about respecting life and trying to preserve it where we can.
I agree with Holly completely. If Terri didn't write it, the decision is already made -- everything has to be done to preserve her life. Period. Her husband, her parents, her friends, a judge -- NO ONE -- has the right to end her life.
Her "husband" left her a long time ago and if he had a shred of decency in him, he would just turn over guardianship to her parents.
Do I want a judge to make those decisions? No, I wish it wasn't necessary. The fact is, Terry has lived, in some form, with the provision of food and water. Withholding food and water from anyone is a guarantor of death, a cruel, painful way to die. This is exactly the circumstances we would hope to avoid by making known our own wishes regarding what measures we want taken on our own behalf -- in writing. That's the point of this topic, not the political aspects of what's now forced into the courts. If the parents are willing to continue as her guardians, what's your beef?
That hardly says it all. And you didn't answer Trixie's question. If her parents want to take care of her, what's the problem? Who suffers if Terri lives? In the videoes she's smiling and seeming to respond to her parents. She's certainly not suffering at any rate, as her husband would have us believe.
And, another thing..
First of all, I specifically said I DON'T think a judge, a parent or a "husband" has the right to end a life. So, of course, I don't want judges deciding this. The judiciary system is the last place I would want this decided. Read what I wrote.
Second, if you don't put it on paper it can--and should--be assumed that you have the right to life. That is what stops people from getting rid of sick or elderly or disabled people who have become an inconvenience. We do not have the right to get rid of people because it's a chore to take care of them.
Do we want people's life support being turned off on hearsay? Do we want doctors (and by the way, there are just as many "experts" saying she is not in a vegetative state, so you don't really know who to believe unless, of course, you already have a political stance on the subject) declaring who can live and who can die? This is why that piece of paper is so important.
I don't have a problem with someone who has made their wishes known on paper having their feeding tube pulled, or whatever else their wishes were. This is not about keeping a person alive against their wishes. This is about assigning the right of who lives or who dies to someone other than the person who is actually going to live or die. And THAT is the big picture. And to put that in the hands of the judiciary system, or a doctor's, or a "husband" who moved on in his life a long time ago is more frightening and has bigger implications than anything the Bush presidency has done. It should chill any thinking person to the bone.
Third, they are not talking about taking Terri off a ventilator or withholding emergency care from her. They're talking about withholding FOOD and WATER. And they are classifying it as medical treatment so they can get away with withholding it. When did giving food and water become a medical treatment? It's just a legal, technicality hoop they had to jump through so they could "let" her die. I can tell you from personal, first-hand experience this will not be a pretty death. I almost gagged when I heard a doctor on CNN talking about the "comfort measures" and painless death. He's such a liar!
Lip balm and moistend swabs? Was he kidding? Morphine and Ativan might dope her up so she didn't feel quite so bad, but it's hardly a peaceful death.
Would we feel so cavalier about letting her die if the judge had told Michael Schiavo that he had permission to just shoot her and put her out of her misery? What's the difference? How is this more humane? Actually, that would be more mericful than letting her die of thirst. If she were a convicted criminal on death row she would be treated better than her husband is treating her now.
Fourth, if you have been following the case closely (and not just finding sarcastic and cynical opinion pieces on our government that have nothing to do with case) you would know that Terri's condition has been diagnosed on rather flimsy tests and her treatment to-date has been based on convenience. Read the article from National Review Online and you will see that several expert, board certified neurologists have been asking for, at the least, a reevaluation of Terri's condition. Even basic tests such as an MRI or PET haven't been conducted and there are other gaps in her care that are questionable. Why weren't those things done? Why the rush to kill her?
Fifth, I suspect that most people who hear the term "vegetative" immediately think of someone who is nothing but brain dead. This is not the case. Brain death is defined as the irreversible loss of ALL functions of the brain, which does not apply to Terri Schiavo. The term Vegetative State has come to be applied to people who actually do show some signs of awareness. Who are we to decide how much awareness you have to have before it's okay to "let" you die?
Cindy Province (who holds master’s degrees in medical surgical nursing and bioethics, and is a cofounder and associate director of the St. Louis Center for Bioethics and Culture), states we cannot let the death sentence of PVS fit all situations, "Part of the reason is that consciousness is a continuum, not an all-or-nothing phenomenon. In general, terms, human brains aren't like light bulbs that are either on or off. Instead, they are more like irons, which, while turned on, may be anywhere from warm to hot."
So what if someone in a PVS state for seven years or more just needs more time to allow the injured brain time to go from lukewarm to hot? Is that unrealistic? Unlikely? Ms. Province relayed recently that on the, "medical horizon, a large amount of work with severely brain-injured patients is taking place." This research is happening inside and outside the United States. Not long ago, at the Royal Hospital for Neurodisability in London, a diagnostic tool was developed to help medical professionals identify awareness in patients previously diagnosed as unaware. Some of these patients have begun to communicate, and to recapture some physical function, but more significantly -for ethical concerns- to express their wish to live.
Still not convinced? Then consider Kate Adamson, a woman who was incapacitated and had her feeding tube removed after suffering a double brainstem stroke in 1995. She was in worse condition than Terri Schivao is now. She describes the horror of being able to hear what people were saying, understanding what was being done to her, and being unable to react. After her husband succeeded in getting her feeding tube reattached she went on to a miraculous recovery. (Note: her HUSBAND had to fight to get her feeding tube reattached. Shouldn't he have had the same guardianship rights the "right-to-die" people are claiming for Michael Schiavo? Don't tell me there's not an agenda here.) Kate Adamson is now one of those fighting for Terri Schiavo's life.
Crystal's excellent response is to a comment that has been removed, but you can find the original article at: http://bestoftheblogs.com/ and then find the heading of Priorities.
Tech has it right when he calls the husband "creepy." His dogged determination to end Terri's life is beyond strange. He says that Terri is already gone. Why then this fight to end her life? If her parents wish to spend their remaining years taking care of her "shell" why shouldn't he allow it? He says Terri told him to not keep her alive, but no one else ever heard her say such a thing.
I support right-to-die, but this is not an instance of that. If Terri had left clear written instructions, then they should have been followed over the objections of her parents, the church, whoever. But she didn't. That's the crux of this.
8 comments:
The whole thing is tragic. I don't trust her husband at all. His behavior is creepy. I don't understand why he won't allow her parents to care for her. He's already living with another woman. He could easily get a divorce and move on. Instead you have this dogged determination to end her life. It makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up.
By the way, let me state: I don't want anyone turning off my machines! I want to live until I can't. But I hope no one ever has to make that decision for me.
I also like Holly's essay. Like TECH, I don't understand the husband's actions. Some of his decisions and statements show an unholy zeal in pursuing her death. I hope the judge removes him as her guardian.
And it's not about respecting her wishes. We don't know what her wishes were. It's about respecting life and trying to preserve it where we can.
I agree with Holly completely. If Terri didn't write it, the decision is already made -- everything has to be done to preserve her life. Period. Her husband, her parents, her friends, a judge -- NO ONE -- has the right to end her life.
Her "husband" left her a long time ago and if he had a shred of decency in him, he would just turn over guardianship to her parents.
Do I want a judge to make those decisions? No, I wish it wasn't necessary. The fact is, Terry has lived, in some form, with the provision of food and water. Withholding food and water from anyone is a guarantor of death, a cruel, painful way to die.
This is exactly the circumstances we would hope to avoid by making known our own wishes regarding what measures we want taken on our own behalf -- in writing. That's the point of this topic, not the political aspects of what's now forced into the courts. If the parents are willing to continue as her guardians, what's your beef?
That hardly says it all. And you didn't answer Trixie's question. If her parents want to take care of her, what's the problem? Who suffers if Terri lives? In the videoes she's smiling and seeming to respond to her parents. She's certainly not suffering at any rate, as her husband would have us believe.
And, another thing..
First of all, I specifically said I DON'T think a judge, a parent or a "husband" has the right to end a life. So, of course, I don't want judges deciding this. The judiciary system is the last place I would want this decided. Read what I wrote.
Second, if you don't put it on paper it can--and should--be assumed that you have the right to life. That is what stops people from getting rid of sick or elderly or disabled people who have become an inconvenience. We do not have the right to get rid of people because it's a chore to take care of them.
Do we want people's life support being turned off on hearsay? Do we want doctors (and by the way, there are just as many "experts" saying she is not in a vegetative state, so you don't really know who to believe unless, of course, you already have a political stance on the subject) declaring who can live and who can die? This is why that piece of paper is so important.
I don't have a problem with someone who has made their wishes known on paper having their feeding tube pulled, or whatever else their wishes were. This is not about keeping a person alive against their wishes. This is about assigning the right of who lives or who dies to someone other than the person who is actually going to live or die. And THAT is the big picture. And to put that in the hands of the judiciary system, or a doctor's, or a "husband" who moved on in his life a long time ago is more frightening and has bigger implications than anything the Bush presidency has done. It should chill any thinking person to the bone.
Third, they are not talking about taking Terri off a ventilator or withholding emergency care from her. They're talking about withholding FOOD and WATER. And they are classifying it as medical treatment so they can get away with withholding it. When did giving food and water become a medical treatment? It's just a legal, technicality hoop they had to jump through so they could "let" her die. I can tell you from personal, first-hand experience this will not be a pretty death. I almost gagged when I heard a doctor on CNN talking about the "comfort measures" and painless death. He's such a liar!
Lip balm and moistend swabs? Was he kidding? Morphine and Ativan might dope her up so she didn't feel quite so bad, but it's hardly a peaceful death.
Would we feel so cavalier about letting her die if the judge had told Michael Schiavo that he had permission to just shoot her and put her out of her misery? What's the difference? How is this more humane? Actually, that would be more mericful than letting her die of thirst. If she were a convicted criminal on death row she would be treated better than her husband is treating her now.
Fourth, if you have been following the case closely (and not just finding sarcastic and cynical opinion pieces on our government that have nothing to do with case) you would know that Terri's condition has been diagnosed on rather flimsy tests and her treatment to-date has been based on convenience. Read the article from National Review Online and you will see that several expert, board certified neurologists have been asking for, at the least, a reevaluation of Terri's condition. Even basic tests such as an MRI or PET haven't been conducted and there are other gaps in her care that are questionable. Why weren't those things done? Why the rush to kill her?
Fifth, I suspect that most people who hear the term "vegetative" immediately think of someone who is nothing but brain dead. This is not the case. Brain death is defined as the irreversible loss of ALL functions of the brain, which does not apply to Terri Schiavo. The term Vegetative State has come to be applied to people who actually do show some signs of awareness. Who are we to decide how much awareness you have to have before it's okay to "let" you die?
Cindy Province (who holds master’s degrees in medical surgical nursing and bioethics, and is a cofounder and associate director of the St. Louis Center for Bioethics and Culture), states we cannot let the death sentence of PVS fit all situations, "Part of the reason is that consciousness is a continuum, not an all-or-nothing phenomenon. In general, terms, human brains aren't like light bulbs that are either on or off. Instead, they are more like irons, which, while turned on, may be anywhere from warm to hot."
So what if someone in a PVS state for seven years or more just needs more time to allow the injured brain time to go from lukewarm to hot? Is that unrealistic? Unlikely? Ms. Province relayed recently that on the, "medical horizon, a large amount of work with severely brain-injured patients is taking place." This research is happening inside and outside the United States. Not long ago, at the Royal Hospital for Neurodisability in London, a diagnostic tool was developed to help medical professionals identify awareness in patients previously diagnosed as unaware. Some of these patients have begun to communicate, and to recapture some physical function, but more significantly -for ethical concerns- to express their wish to live.
Still not convinced? Then consider Kate Adamson, a woman who was incapacitated and had her feeding tube removed after suffering a double brainstem stroke in 1995. She was in worse condition than Terri Schivao is now. She describes the horror of being able to hear what people were saying, understanding what was being done to her, and being unable to react. After her husband succeeded in getting her feeding tube reattached she went on to a miraculous recovery. (Note: her HUSBAND had to fight to get her feeding tube reattached. Shouldn't he have had the same guardianship rights the "right-to-die" people are claiming for Michael Schiavo? Don't tell me there's not an agenda here.) Kate Adamson is now one of those fighting for Terri Schiavo's life.
"I drool, therefore I am"? My god, how cynical...
Crystal's excellent response is to a comment that has been removed, but you can find the original article at: http://bestoftheblogs.com/ and then find the heading of Priorities.
Tech has it right when he calls the husband "creepy." His dogged determination to end Terri's life is beyond strange. He says that Terri is already gone. Why then this fight to end her life? If her parents wish to spend their remaining years taking care of her "shell" why shouldn't he allow it? He says Terri told him to not keep her alive, but no one else ever heard her say such a thing.
I support right-to-die, but this is not an instance of that. If Terri had left clear written instructions, then they should have been followed over the objections of her parents, the church, whoever. But she didn't. That's the crux of this.
This has really opened my eyes to the whole mess!!! My heart goes out to Terri and her family. I hope the courts protect her.
Post a Comment