#1
Posted: 3/18/05 at 8:01pm
Do you think this person should be "allowed"/"forced" to die by starvation? I am totally sickened by this.
#2
Posted: 3/18/05 at 8:15pm
I am mostly sickened by DeLay and his characters using this very difficult private issue for their desired political gain.
#3
Posted: 3/18/05 at 8:18pm
This has nothing to do with politics. Don't turn it into a political issue. Too bad this woman wasn't a beached whale, PETA would fervently protect her if she were. A serial killer is entitled to an easier death with lethal injection than she will have slowly starving to death.
#4
Posted: 3/18/05 at 8:21pm
I don't understand where all the "women's" groups are. You know, the ones who fought to educate people that women were not the property of men? Them. Where are they? Why were only Republicans trying to prevent this? Where are the Democrats? They collectively turned their backs on this women, who has had family and doctors say she is not vegitative. The family (mother, father, sister and brother) have said they would care for her. The husband says no. Why? Because he gets to collect her death benefits; he gets to spend her settlement (which was intended for her care). Why doesn't life matter? How can they kill the most vulnerable of our citizens? The infirmed. The disabled. This poor woman's parents plead and beg for their daughter's life, and the courts say no. This poor woman's husband says she would never want to be kept alive (only his word - nothing in writing), so they should starve her, and that's what they do. It's beyond revolting.
scooter3843
#5
Posted: 3/18/05 at 8:22pm
I've now spent over 3 hours in classes discussing this very issue and I think that Terry has a right to die. If you want me to go into all the reasons, I would do that, but if you just want to berate me, I won't.
How much do you actually know about this case, btw?
And this has EVERYTHING to do with politics.
How much do you actually know about this case, btw?
And this has EVERYTHING to do with politics.
Why do we play with fire?
Why do we run our fingers through the flame?
Why do we leave our hands on the stove, although we know we're in for some pain?
-tick...tick...BOOM!
#6
Posted: 3/18/05 at 8:24pm
I know a lot about this case. Yes, I agree she has a right to die, if that is her wish. Where's the proof that this is her wish?
scooter3843
#7
Posted: 3/18/05 at 8:26pm
Do you want to live in a vegetative state your entire life? The evidence that she is conscious or aware is circumstancial at best.
The problem with this case as I see it is that the only choice as far as her death is concerned is for her to starve to death, an unfortunate choice given that we have managed to make sure that right-to-die choices are outlawed.
The only really humane thing to do here is euthanasia. But hey, Republicans don't want that, because as long as she lives, someone's making money off of her.
The problem with this case as I see it is that the only choice as far as her death is concerned is for her to starve to death, an unfortunate choice given that we have managed to make sure that right-to-die choices are outlawed.
The only really humane thing to do here is euthanasia. But hey, Republicans don't want that, because as long as she lives, someone's making money off of her.
#8
Posted: 3/18/05 at 8:29pm
That's actually a good question. And that is where it breaks down--although there's been testimony saying that she had said she didn't want to be maintained in that state. Granted it was her husband's testimony. And I was actually responding to thirdrowcenter when I asked what they knew about the case. Your post seemed more knowledgeable. Thirdrow's response seemed uninformed. And removing someone's feeding tube doesn't make them suffer starvation in the same way as we think of it. Actually, in cases like that, I think I'm in favor of active voluntary euthanasia to prevent suffering anyway (though I'm not sure on that front.)
Why do we play with fire?
Why do we run our fingers through the flame?
Why do we leave our hands on the stove, although we know we're in for some pain?
-tick...tick...BOOM!
#9
Posted: 3/18/05 at 8:29pm
3row – I did not politicize this. Today DeLay issued bogus subpoenas to individuals to “testify”. That was a gross political gesture.
F and Jess - I have to cook dinner. I will review and get back later. sorry
F and Jess - I have to cook dinner. I will review and get back later. sorry
Updated On: 3/18/05 at 08:29 PM
#10
Posted: 3/18/05 at 8:36pm
Of course I know about this case. I don't believe the word of her husband, who has gone on with his life. When this first happened to Terry (mysteriously) she was able to walk with help and was receiving therapy. Her husand ordered no further therapy to be given. She degenerated and developed an injection which resulted in sepsis. Her brain suffered more damage. Why does her husband want her dead? He has ordered her to be cremated immediately and no autopsy be performed. I question his motives.
#11
Posted: 3/18/05 at 8:45pm
Cruel punishment okay, let her starve to death. That's a day at the beach.
#12
Posted: 3/18/05 at 8:45pm
Okay, first of all (and I did it too, I'm not trying to be mean) her name is Terri. Second of all, Michael pursued a number of experimental treatments for several years at several different facilities with the hope of seeing Terri improve. He did not "just let it go."
I will admit that I personally haven't watched any of Michael's testimony, but I think the parents have many mixed motives. I also believe they're not respecting their daughter's autonomy and are instead acting out of strong paternalism, which isn't inherently bad, but I don't think they're acting in Terri's best interest.
The money does make me questions Michael's motives, but I think that the courts have dealt with that the best anyone can.
Terri has virtually no chance of improvement (according to two doctors from Michael's side, as well as a court-appointed doctor.) And while improvement is not the only morally good outcome, if we accept Michael's testimony (which I understand you don't, and I think it's correct to question) then I believe she would have wanted to have the feeding tube removed.
The thing I regret is the politicization of the case, as well as the media. That is what is morally revolting.
I will admit that I personally haven't watched any of Michael's testimony, but I think the parents have many mixed motives. I also believe they're not respecting their daughter's autonomy and are instead acting out of strong paternalism, which isn't inherently bad, but I don't think they're acting in Terri's best interest.
The money does make me questions Michael's motives, but I think that the courts have dealt with that the best anyone can.
Terri has virtually no chance of improvement (according to two doctors from Michael's side, as well as a court-appointed doctor.) And while improvement is not the only morally good outcome, if we accept Michael's testimony (which I understand you don't, and I think it's correct to question) then I believe she would have wanted to have the feeding tube removed.
The thing I regret is the politicization of the case, as well as the media. That is what is morally revolting.
Why do we play with fire?
Why do we run our fingers through the flame?
Why do we leave our hands on the stove, although we know we're in for some pain?
-tick...tick...BOOM!
#13
Posted: 3/18/05 at 8:47pm
Again thirdrow, then doesn't that make you consider active voluntary euthanasia? If you want to relieve the suffering....
And the effects on a person whose feeding tube is removed is not the same as starvation (except perhaps symbolically.)
And the effects on a person whose feeding tube is removed is not the same as starvation (except perhaps symbolically.)
Why do we play with fire?
Why do we run our fingers through the flame?
Why do we leave our hands on the stove, although we know we're in for some pain?
-tick...tick...BOOM!
#14
Posted: 3/18/05 at 8:54pm
Jess, what happens when the feeding tube is removed? Please explain what differences in suffering she will experience.
#15
Posted: 3/18/05 at 9:02pm
Procedures of MN&H (Medicinal nutrition and hydration, i.e. feeding tubes) themselves sometimes involve risks of harm, discomfort, and indignity, such as pain from a central IV and physical restraints that prevent patients from removing the lines or tubes. Evidence also indicates that patients who are allowed to die without artificial hydration sometimes die more comfortably than patients who receive such hydration. It is misleading to project the common experience of hunger and thirst on a dying patient who is malnourished and dehydrated. Malnutrition is not identical with hunger; dehydration is not identical with thirst; and starvation is very different from acute dehydration in a medical setting. Caregivers can also alleviate feelings of hunger, thirst, dryness of the mouth, and related problems by other means, such as ice on the lips, without introducing MN&H.
Taken from "Principles of Biomedical Ethics" by Tom Beauchamp and James Childress (one of the most influential books on biomedical ethics ever published, not just some obscure source. They also cite other sources, which I could include if you really want, but if you're not actually going to go look them up, then I'm not going to type it.)
Edited for typos :)
Taken from "Principles of Biomedical Ethics" by Tom Beauchamp and James Childress (one of the most influential books on biomedical ethics ever published, not just some obscure source. They also cite other sources, which I could include if you really want, but if you're not actually going to go look them up, then I'm not going to type it.)
Edited for typos :)
Why do we play with fire?
Why do we run our fingers through the flame?
Why do we leave our hands on the stove, although we know we're in for some pain?
-tick...tick...BOOM!
Updated On: 3/18/05 at 09:02 PM
#16
Posted: 3/18/05 at 9:07pm
This is certainly not a black and white issues, and we're not going to solve it here. Lesson to be learned. Everyone should have a living will.
scooter3843
#17
Posted: 3/18/05 at 9:08pm
Thridrow, are you against whats being done in general or the way its being carried out (i.e. removal of feeding tube)?
I want to write music. I want to sit down right now at my piano and write a song that people will listen to and remember and do the same thing every morning...for the rest of my life. - Jonathan Larson. Tick, Tick...BOOM!
#18
Posted: 3/18/05 at 9:12pm
She isn't a malnourished or malhydrated patient now. She will become one now. I know when a person is close to death for example a cancer patient, food and water no longer matter because the body doesn't need the sustanance anymore. So you are saying that Terri will not suffer convulsions, blindness, total hair loss? I'm just asking out of curiosity. Will they keep her sedated.
#19
Posted: 3/18/05 at 9:12pm
Not that living wills are infallible.... Anyone read USAtoday on Wednesday?
Good question TGIF.
Good question TGIF.
Why do we play with fire?
Why do we run our fingers through the flame?
Why do we leave our hands on the stove, although we know we're in for some pain?
-tick...tick...BOOM!
#20
Posted: 3/18/05 at 9:14pm
No, what i'm saying is that removal of the feeding tube will cause malnutrition and acute dehydration before it will cause "starvation" so she won't feel what we call "starvation." I assume they'll keep her sedated; at least they should. And this is why in such cases I would consider advocating AVE--if the decision has already been made, let her do it without suffering. I am not saying that removal of MN&H is painless, but neither is being on MN&H.
And I'm not a medical doctor, so I can't tell you exactly what will happen. I do know, however, that talk of "starvation" is incorrect and misleading.
Edited because apparently four papers and a final all in one day makes me unable to type.
And I'm not a medical doctor, so I can't tell you exactly what will happen. I do know, however, that talk of "starvation" is incorrect and misleading.
Edited because apparently four papers and a final all in one day makes me unable to type.
Why do we play with fire?
Why do we run our fingers through the flame?
Why do we leave our hands on the stove, although we know we're in for some pain?
-tick...tick...BOOM!
Updated On: 3/18/05 at 09:14 PM
#21
Posted: 3/18/05 at 9:21pm
There are medications that will ease any ill-effects of the lack of nourishment. I assume she will get these. Of course, that's only if the tube stays out. It may be reinserted. It's happened before.
scooter3843
#22
Posted: 3/18/05 at 9:22pm
TGIF I am against the removal of the feeding tube. This woman is not on life support. She smiles when she sees her mother. I feel it's murder.
#23
Posted: 3/18/05 at 9:23pm
She smiles when she sees her mother.
That's not substantiated by any medical evidence.
You're failing to respond to many of my points, and I'd be interested to know what you think, thirdrow.
Feodor--it's even happened to her before--twice.
That's not substantiated by any medical evidence.
You're failing to respond to many of my points, and I'd be interested to know what you think, thirdrow.
Feodor--it's even happened to her before--twice.
Why do we play with fire?
Why do we run our fingers through the flame?
Why do we leave our hands on the stove, although we know we're in for some pain?
-tick...tick...BOOM!
#24
Posted: 3/18/05 at 9:29pm
I'm sorry, I have to go for awhile. Hopefully I'll be back later to continue this discussion.
Why do we play with fire?
Why do we run our fingers through the flame?
Why do we leave our hands on the stove, although we know we're in for some pain?
-tick...tick...BOOM!
#25
Posted: 3/18/05 at 9:35pm
Jess, I saw Million Dollar Baby and I thought the euthanasia was right. In this case, however, I have seen pictures of this woman smiling in the direction of her mother. Her family wants her to live. I don't believe her husband.
Sunny Von Bulow is still alive. Will she be next?
Sunny Von Bulow is still alive. Will she be next?
.gif?width=300)
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $70
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $101
