 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsCat AnecdotesHealth and BehaviorRescue CatKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Cat Forum / Cat Anecdotes / April 2005OT Terri Schiavo RIP
As I was turning La Machine on I heard CNN announce that Terri Schiavo has just passed. Beyond a doubt she'll be crossing the Bridge on two good, strong legs and with the full intelligence that was hers until fifteen years ago. May both sides of her family be healed and reconciled. Blessed be, Baha -- Three thousand years ago, cats were deified in ancient Egypt. To this day, they have not forgotten. This whole case had really upset me, but it also made me relize just how important it was to put my wishes in writing. It hurt me to see the family being torn apart by this and I could not bear to look at the video footage of her, to be in her condition she still looked so happy and full of life. My heart goes out to her family and I to hope they find peace with in themselves to not be resentful of the other. May she rest in peace and may her soul go straight to heaven. After having to live in that broken, unusable body for 15 years, her spirit deserves no less than eternal peace and joy. And may her family, BOTH sides of her family, have consolation and peace in the aftermath of her passing. Donna > As I was turning La Machine on I heard CNN announce that Terri Schiavo has > just passed. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > cats were deified in ancient Egypt. > To this day, they have not forgotten. My purrs go out to her & her family as well. I must say, the media circus that was generated by this whole affair disgusted me. And... (& I run the risk here of opening a big can of worms) I found The whole rally by the 'right to life' folks equally disgusting.... Docctors said she was in a 'Permanent vegitative state', but, in the final analasys, we don't really know what was going on inside her mind. Was it more humane to deprive her of nutrients & water than to give her a massive shot of morphine? We put our cats down when there's no hope left & they are suffering, why can't we extend the same kindness to hoomans? Mathew Butler to 2 kittens: Chablis & Muscat En Vino Veritas > know what was going on inside her mind. Was it more humane to deprive her > of nutrients & water than to give her a massive shot of morphine? We put > our cats down when there's no hope left & they are suffering, why can't we > extend the same kindness to hoomans? *Exactly* Victor, posting from work. I second that! >> know what was going on inside her mind. Was it more humane to > deprive her [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > can't we >> extend the same kindness to hoomans? > *Exactly* > Victor, posting from work. No way.  SignatureCheryl I wish in circumstances like that we could choose to give someone a megadose of morphine instead of starve them to death. fuga > My purrs go out to her & her family as well. I must say, the media circus > that was generated by this whole affair disgusted me. And... (& I run the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > our cats down when there's no hope left & they are suffering, why can't we > extend the same kindness to hoomans? You tell me! (I've never understood it, either.) > Mathew > Butler to 2 kittens: Chablis & Muscat > En Vino Veritas > As I was turning La Machine on I heard CNN announce that Terri Schiavo has > just passed. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Blessed be, > Baha Amen! Joy >As I was turning La Machine on I heard CNN announce that Terri Schiavo has >just passed. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Blessed be, >Baha May the poor thing finally rest in peace. Theresa Stinky Pictures: http://community.webshots.com/album/125591586JWEFwh My Blog: http://www.humanitas.blogspot.com > As I was turning La Machine on I heard CNN announce that Terri Schiavo has > just passed. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > cats were deified in ancient Egypt. > To this day, they have not forgotten. I am thankful for her sake that this matter is resolved. I hope she is indeed crossing the Rainbow Bridge in full health and possession of all her faculties, now. I wish that there had been a more merciful way to give her release than waiting for her body to die for several days after the removal of the feeding tube. But I just know all the people who are against euthanasia would have likely been up in arms about that, too. I am thankful for her sake that Randall Terry couldn't manage to get her "Rescued" and force her to go on 'living' without her brain to pass the time. Melissa > I am thankful for her sake that this matter is resolved. I hope she is > indeed crossing the Rainbow Bridge in full health and possession of all her [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > for her sake that Randall Terry couldn't manage to get her "Rescued" and > force her to go on 'living' without her brain to pass the time. A couple of days ago, Netscape started showing pictures of her as she was before the coma, instead of the photos we'd been seeing up until then. Compare that attractive, vibrant woman to the way she looked in the hospital, and how could ANYONE think she should be forced to remain alive? As to its being "God's will", I'm sorry, but I don't think any God who would deliberately condemn anyone to such a non-life is WORTHY of my worship! (I'd prefer to think He was testing the compassion and common sense of the "right to lifers" - and finding them sadly lacking in either.) > > I am thankful for her sake that this matter is resolved. I hope she is > > indeed crossing the Rainbow Bridge in full health and possession of all her [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > the compassion and common sense of the "right to lifers" - > and finding them sadly lacking in either.) Too right! Alas, what can you expect of the more exreme Right to Life examples who shoot doctors and bomb clinics to prove their great reverence for life, and never see the contradiction in terms? I mean, what's their motto: "Shoot a doctor for Jesus?" As a mental ramble, I very much admired the late Christopher Reeve. Although he and his family had had to make a devastating adjustment after his spinal cord injury, his public conduct was always courageous, and he became his own best advocate. And a good advocate of non-famous people who had endured similar spinal cord injuries. I thought it took and showed a lot of class and courage on his part to behave as he did, and I admired the way he sustained himself with the hope that one day medicine would be able to do enough to get him out of that wheelchair, again. Unfortunately, time caught him up before that happened, but he never gave up. I certainly never thought Mr. Reeve should pack it it, because, no matter how injured his body was, it was clear there was nothing wrong with his brain. He couldn't move, but he was very much alive. Terri Schiavo, by contrast, was not so terribly wounded in body, but the emotional and sentient being she used to be had been gone for fifteen years. Our body breathes and the heart beats and the digestive tract digests without our having to think about it. I'm not unsympathetic to her family's grief, but after the past two weeks, I don't have much patience with them, any more. I think their capacity for self-delusion was working at full throttle. I'm sure they WANTED to believe she could get better, but how many neurologists and how many CTscans and how many court cases would it have taken to convince them she was beyond help? It would have TAKEN a miracle to restore any kind of function to her brain, and expecting a personal miracle for a woman whose cerebral cortex had reached a liquid state is hardly medically sound reasoning. Nor is death an unnatural thing to be fought off at all costs. Mrs. Schiavo was very unfortunate in the manner of her death, and so was her family. It would have been far better for them all if her brain and her body had died at the same moment. Then the Schindlers might have accepted their loss in dignity and privacy fifteen years ago instead of having this public media circus drag on for the past two weeks. Not to make light of this death, but they are not the only people who will lose a family member this year. Nor are they the only people who have had to wrestle with the awful question of "Do we accept our loss as part of the natural course of events, or should we hold on a little while longer and hope there is some medical development that will help the person we love regain at least partial function?" I hope for their sakes the President and Congress decide to let them wrestle with those issues out of the public eye. Melissa > > > I am thankful for her sake that this matter is resolved. I hope she is > > > indeed crossing the Rainbow Bridge in full health and possession of all [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > > Melissa Very well put! Joy Although they had extremely opposite opinions, I can still hold to the idea that both Terri's huband and her parents were genuinely acting on what they felt was in Terri's best interest. Both 'sides' were deeply affected by the loss of the person Terri was, and I am quite sure that they felt they were trying to do the right thing for her, even though they very much disagreed on what that right thing to do was. Either way, they will now both grieve for the loss of someone they deeply loved. Those that saw the situation and used it to further their own personal agendas rather than knowing and caring about the person that was Terri Schiavo ought to be deeply ashamed of themselves. Are they grieving the loss of their loved one? Does the death of Terri wrench a hole in their heart that will never compley heal? Did they know Terri's favourite colour, or what she liked for breakfast? Will they cry on this day next year or visit her grave, or will they have found another convenient situation that furthers their agenda, and never think of Terri again - assuming they ever did think about the person she was in the first place. Shame on all of them. I hope Terri, and her family, can finally rest in peace. Yowie Is there a particular level of mental functioning that makes a person human? Many of the arguments I hear assume that someone who loses - or is born without? - some minimum level of mental ability and ability to care for themselves should be quietly and neatly put down. I thought it must be for convenience of the living, but after reading various posts, I can only conclude that many people do not consider people who are severely disabled, particularly severely mentally disabled, as sub-human. I simply cannot agree with such a narrow definition of 'human'. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I will even go further and say that people who are 'temporarily abled' as they have been called can leave instructions for their care or lack of care should they become disabled. But I cannot let claims that of course it is only merciful to kill off the dying and disabled go unchallenged, as though there were not another approach to life and death. The only consolation in the whole tragic mess is that poor Terri Schiavo's long, slow death is finally over. SignatureCheryl > Is there a particular level of mental functioning that makes a person > human? Many of the arguments I hear assume that someone who loses - or is [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > disabled, particularly severely mentally disabled, as sub-human. I simply > cannot agree with such a narrow definition of 'human'. Cheryl, while I am neither a Christian nor "pro-life", I once was stunned by hearing Jerry Falwell, of all people, make about the most concise statement I'd ever heard of the abortion debate. Paraphrasing, he suggested no one was intending to kill people. He said that "pro-choice" people simply did not consider fetuses human, and he would pray that they change their minds. This is probably not the place to get into a discussion of this, but let me point out several issues, as opposed to recommendations. In any country, medical resources are finite. In major disasters, the basic triage model is accepted worldwide: you accept there are some people that cannot be saved with available resources, and that even attempting more than comfort measures would cause many others to die. For example, in the time it takes a surgical team of finite size to stabilize a person with 80% burns, they might have been able (hypothetical example) to stabilize 10 patients with major chest injuries that generally will heal. A person with that level of burn (and yes, I am oversimplifying), has a dismal prognosis even with the best of care. Ethicists have argued for year as to whether the "greatest good for the greatest number" is a valid principle, and there is no simple answer. Canada has made a policy choice to emphasize basic care and not necessarily allocate large resources to high-risk low-return care. > Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I will even go further and say > that people who are 'temporarily abled' as they have been called can [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > dying and disabled go unchallenged, as though there were not another > approach to life and death. There's an old medical joke "What's the difference between God and a neurosurgeon? God doesn't think he's a neurosurgeon." Seriously, there is a point in any acute care resuscitation where the team leader will have to say "stop compressions. Time of death, 8:30 PM." Current practice is now not even to start CPR and advanced cardiac life support in certain circumstances, such as finding a trauma victim pulseless with blunt chest trauma. There is a medical phrase that more people should know: "Injuries incompatible with life." At some point, that determination has to be made in any care situation. In any situation dealing with more than one individual, there HAVE to be decisions on resource allocation. > The only consolation in the whole tragic mess is that poor Terri > Schiavo's > long, slow death is finally over. Howard Berkowitz <hcb@gettcomm.com> wrote: > In article <snip> I am aware of limited resources, decisions to limit or discontinue care, and other such issues. I think you are missing my point, and assuming that I support the 'life at any cost under any conditions' position that is often attributed to those who express concern about or opposition to euthanasia. My point is not that people shouldn't choose what care they accept nor that they cannot choose to discontinue care and accept that the end of their life has come. I am saying that many of the comments I read omit the fact that this is a choice, and that it is a crucial one, one that is of such importance that it has been a subject of intense debate for millenia, probably since our ancestors became human. The issue is being treated as trivial; as though of course there is and can be no question that someone with a serious medical condition should die, and if they don't die, let's just finish them off. It's not as though someone who can breathe, whose heart is beating, is really alive or human any more! After all, they can't talk or take care of themselves! This is what I object to. The automatic assumption that people who can't speak for themselves and need help to survive are not-people, non-human, and should be put down, the only question being whether thirst or morphine is 'more humane'. There are other questions, and there are real choices in many cases. There are people who are living, and who want to live who would be euthanized by well-meaning people who belong to the 'not quite human' school of thought about the weak and disabled, and who are not aware of other schools of thought on the issue. I am not talking about situations in which someone who has terminal cancer decides not to go for additional expensive, painful operations which at their best will buy a day or a week, or someone who refuses food during the final hours of their death, or someone who has chosen to refuse a stomach tube, or any of the other difficult end-of-life issues. I am complaining about the automatic assumption that someone who cannot speak for herself and who has little or no intellectual mental function left should not be allowed to live based on those facts alone. SignatureCheryl > Howard Berkowitz <hcb@gettcomm.com> wrote: > In article > <snip> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > for herself and who has little or no intellectual mental function left > should not be allowed to live based on those facts alone. I am with you on this, Cheryl. To decide to kill on the basis of severe disability is indeed the thin end of the wedge. I am not debating whether this case is right or wrong. I am saying that if you once start to allow it, the criteria will creep forward. I have already heard talk of "resources" which means "money available." We should never ask our doctors to decide who they will let die because of money. I do not want to see a scenerio when an 18 yo with severe brain injury through a road accident has to compete with a 60 y.o who had a stroke and can recover. Tweed > I am with you on this, Cheryl. > To decide to kill on the basis of severe disability is indeed the thin [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > never > ask our doctors to decide who they will let die because of money. Every industrialized country, much less third world ones, do not have infinite money for medical care. How do you propose to deal with that? > I do not want to see a scenerio when an 18 yo with severe brain injury > through a road accident has to compete with a 60 y.o who had a stroke and > can recover. To deal with the real world, that 18 year old, depending on the brain injury, may have zero hope of recovery. That 18 year old may be able to save many others as an organ donor. With respect to stroke, indeed, there are increasingly MORE, not less, resources being devoted to the problem. Quite a number of clinical educators are suggesting that the term "brain attack" be substituted for "stroke [1]", to better make people realize that a developing stroke is the same sort of medical emergency as a heart attack. There are increasing numbers of techniques that can stop, or even reverse, damage in "brain attack", just as there are for "heart attack." In general, there's about a 3 hour window in which these treatments can be effective -- so there's more and more emphasis on speed of transport to appropriate facilities. Assuming the 18-year-old's injury is something like a herniated brainstem, the injuries are incompatible with life. Even if a determination of brain death is made, it's a challenge to keep the heart and lungs going long enough for transplant organ removal. There is NO chance of keeping that individual alive even in a vegetative state, with certain well-defined brain trauma. [1] The usual medical term is "cerebrovascular accident.". I am with you on this, Cheryl. To decide to kill on the basis of severe disability is indeed the thin end of the wedge. I am not debating whether this case is right or wrong. I am saying that if you once start to allow it, the criteria will creep forward. I have already heard talk of "resources" which means "money available." We should never ask our doctors to decide who they will let die because of money. I do not want to see a scenerio when an 18 yo with severe brain injury through a road accident has to compete with a 60 y.o who had a stroke and can recover. Tweed =============================================== I have not commented here on this subject because, as a person with a highly involved disability this issue concerns me directly. Many people in my situation are pressured to sign DNR forms (do not resusitate). During Hitler's reign people like me were put to death. The officials who ordered this were given lighter sentences in the Nurenberg trials because it was felt there was an element od "mercy" in what they did. What made Ms Schiavo's case difficult was she was not on a respirator. She died of starvation and thirst. When I lived in the Nursing Home some residents decided it was their time and stopped eating. It was a slow process they died by inches. When does life lose its value? How do we determine this? Who determines this? > When does life lose its value? When one is no longer even AWARE of being "alive"? > How do we determine this? Diagnostic equipment has now reached a point where you should not even have to ask! SFAIK, there is no longer any danger of burying someone alive, as once happened occasionally, when the person APPEARED to be dead, but had not been embalmed. (One reason for embalming the corpse - aside from the obvious sanitary reasons - is to insure that it IS a corpse, when they bury it.) > Who determines > this? People with the scientific training to do so - not emotionally involved family members, and most CERTAINLY not unrelated strangers with their own political axes to grind! > People with the scientific training to do so - not > emotionally involved family members, and most CERTAINLY not > unrelated strangers with their own political axes to grind! Scientists are only human; they have biases and they make mistakes. SignatureCheryl >>People with the scientific training to do so - not >>emotionally involved family members, and most CERTAINLY not >>unrelated strangers with their own political axes to grind! > > Scientists are only human; they have biases and they make mistakes. Granted, but they are more likely to be objective, when they have no emotional baggage to interfere with clear reasoning. And why is everyone so afraid of dying? Especially if they believe in an afterlife? Death is the natural end of life - if it comes a bit sooner than we anticipated, so what? > Granted, but they are more likely to be objective, when they I should have added that science is the wrong place to look for those sorts of decisions. They can describe a situation; you have to look to your personal moral philosophy to guide you when choosing the right action. (I chose 'moral philosophy' because of course not everyone has a religion, but everyone does have some philosophy or moral code to guide them.) > have no emotional baggage to interfere with clear reasoning. > And why is everyone so afraid of dying? Especially if > they believe in an afterlife? Death is the natural end of > life - if it comes a bit sooner than we anticipated, so what? I think I answered this before. I can think of two reasons right away. Many people's concept of God is that of a personal God, one who has chosen when you are supposed to die. Deliberately making someone's death come 'a bit sooner', either by suicide or murder, is deliberately interfering in the plan for your (or, in the case of murder, someone else's) life. So for a religious person who believes in an afterlife and a personal God, the reason has nothing to do with fear of death. The second reason is held by both religious and non-religious people, especially those who are familiar with the eugenics movement, which started with sterilization and ended with mass murder. When people are making life and death decisions for others, all kinds of stuff like prejudices based on social class and race get mixed up in supposedly scientific ideas on the subject of who should be allowed to breed - or put out of their misery. We as a species don't have a good track record in making such decisions. I'm sure there are other reasons as well. SignatureCheryl > Howard Berkowitz <hcb@gettcomm.com> wrote: > In article > <snip> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > beating, is really alive or human any more! After all, they can't talk or > take care of themselves!? I'm afraid you are making some oversimplifications, and I do not know of anyone routinely concerned with bioethics that would say what you are suggesting. The fundamental criterion for death is brain death. In practice, this is inactivity of the cortex, the part of the brain where what we think of as consciousness exists. If my cortex is gone, I specifically direct no life support whatsoever. I would have absolutely no problem with being given a lethal dose of a barbiturate -- just a minor point that a number of people have talked about morphine for euthanasia. Barbiturates are the standard for veterinary and legal medical euthanasia. If your approach were taken as the standard rule, much of organ transplantation would become impossible. You see, the heart will not continue to beat once the brainstem is dead. I will flatly say that a person with a beating heart driven by an intact brainstem, with no cortical activity or even where trauma or birth malformation causes the cortex to be physically absent, is not alive. Their cells may be alive, but the person is gone. In like manner, standard practice has become when a competent emergency crew finds an accident victim pulseless, in the field, from blunt chest trauma, they don't attempt CPR and declare the patient dead on the spot. There are extensive studies that show these victims have a zero survival rate. Nevertheless, some crews may be pressured by family to try to resuscitate. To me, that's cruel and disrespectful. > This is what I object to. The automatic assumption that people who can't > speak for themselves and need help to survive are not-people, non-human, > and should be put down, And no responsible bioethicist or clinician puts it in those terms. The criteria are usually quite objective, and indeed often in law. The Schiavo case was a travesty. the only question being whether thirst or > morphine > is 'more humane'. I'm sorry, but when you put it in those terms, you are demonstrating a lack of knowledge of end-of-life conditions. First, no one would use morphine for active euthanasia. Second, with appropriate nursing care such as moistening lips and suppressing excessive secretion with anticholinergic drugs, there is extensive hospice experience that death from dehydration is often chosen, and is not uncomfortable. >There are other questions, and there are real choices > in many cases. There are people who are living, and who want to live who > would be euthanized by well-meaning people who belong to the 'not quite > human' school of thought about the weak and disabled, and who are not > aware of other schools of thought on the issue. Fine. Then start defining specific criteria. Are you demanding natural cessation of heartbeat? I have a pacemaker. I could be thoroughly brain-dead, but my heart would continue to beat until it rotted away. > I am not talking about situations in which someone who has terminal > cancer [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > for herself and who has little or no intellectual mental function left > should not be allowed to live based on those facts alone. "little" is not the same as "none". The latter is indicative of a terminal condition. I see no reason to stop a natural process in a body that is already dead. It's really hard for me to respond unless I am dealing with specific medical indications. The Schiavo case is problematic because there is a great deal of emotion involved, but, for not unreasonable privacy reasons, the detailed examination results are not available. I've had a bit of experience caring for bodies in permanent vegetative states. If I ever am in that situation, my own concept of dignity would want active euthanasia. > I'm afraid you are making some oversimplifications, and I do not know of > anyone routinely concerned with bioethics that would say what you are > suggesting. Of course I am simplifying. I'm discussing popular response to the issue, and I am not medically qualified anyway. > The fundamental criterion for death is brain death. In practice, this is > inactivity of the cortex, the part of the brain where what we think of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > of people have talked about morphine for euthanasia. Barbiturates are > the standard for veterinary and legal medical euthanasia. This is your choice. My point is that popular discussion is not about exactly when brain death occurs or if that is the best criteria, it's about 'oh, she can't do this, she can't do that, let her die'. And I would have problems with being given an overdose of a barbituate or morphine or anything else. > If your approach were taken as the standard rule, much of organ > transplantation would become impossible. You see, the heart will not [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > cortex to be physically absent, is not alive. Their cells may be alive, > but the person is gone. And I would say it is not proven that the person is gone, and it is probably from a practical point of view, impossible to prove. But I don't have an 'approach'; I am not arguing the definition of death, but respect for those who are alive. > In like manner, standard practice has become when a competent emergency > crew finds an accident victim pulseless, in the field, from blunt chest > trauma, they don't attempt CPR and declare the patient dead on the spot. > There are extensive studies that show these victims have a zero survival > rate. > Nevertheless, some crews may be pressured by family to try to > resuscitate. To me, that's cruel and disrespectful. I have never suggested that resuscitation should be required in such cases, although I can understand why a family member may wish it. >> This is what I object to. The automatic assumption that people who can't >> speak for themselves and need help to survive are not-people, non-human, >> and should be put down, > And no responsible bioethicist or clinician puts it in those terms. The > criteria are usually quite objective, and indeed often in law. I'm not talking about bioethicists or clinicians, who presumably have some education in the issues and also on the range of moral opinions on them. I'm talking about all the ordinary people in the media, in real life and on Usenet who seem to automatically say, basically, 'put her out of her misery' when faced with some helpless and hopeless person *without ever considering* any of the points you have made. If they haven't already done it, some or all of these people will be deciding whether or not to have treatment, or have relatives treated, who are in some critical medical condition. And they've already decided - bedridden for years? Mentally damaged? I'd rather be dead. I'd rather see my relative dead. Without considering the situation and without considering even the possibility of life with a disability. That's superficial. People deserve better. > The > Schiavo case was a travesty. There, I agree. > I'm sorry, but when you put it in those terms, you are demonstrating a > lack of knowledge of end-of-life conditions. First, no one would use > morphine for active euthanasia. Second, with appropriate nursing care > such as moistening lips and suppressing excessive secretion with > anticholinergic drugs, there is extensive hospice experience that death > from dehydration is often chosen, and is not uncomfortable. Again, I am not saying that people may not choose to die that way. I am saying that forcing it on another person - with no thought, no consideration of any options, including a lengthy period of profound disability - is a different case altogether. And morphine was simply a drug that came to mind. > Fine. Then start defining specific criteria. Are you demanding natural > cessation of heartbeat? I have a pacemaker. I could be thoroughly > brain-dead, but my heart would continue to beat until it rotted away. I'm demanding nothing in the way of a rule for everyone. I am saying that if I see someone who can breathe, whose heart is working, I want more than the knowledge that she is mentally profoundly disabled put forward as a reason for killing her. I suppose I'm demanding that she be recognized as a person, and you are saying that without the higher mental processes, the she is not a person. > "little" is not the same as "none". The latter is indicative of a > terminal condition. I see no reason to stop a natural process in a body > that is already dead. Is 'a terminal condition' = 'dead'? How is a body dead if it breathes and the heart beats? > It's really hard for me to respond unless I am dealing with specific > medical indications. The Schiavo case is problematic because there is a > great deal of emotion involved, but, for not unreasonable privacy > reasons, the detailed examination results are not available. > I've had a bit of experience caring for bodies in permanent vegetative > states. If I ever am in that situation, my own concept of dignity would > want active euthanasia. That's your choice. I do *not* want some over-eager doctor killing me off before it's my time to die. And although I'd rather not spend my last years helpless and dependant, I'll manage it if I have to. I think the differences between us are twofold - one is that you are using a scientific approach and I am not. Your definition of a human is based on brain activity alone; mine is broader, but not scientific. Science is great, but it's not the only tool to use in this situation. And the second is that you are talking about the definition of when death occurs and I am talking about protection and respect for people who are sick or disabled and are at risk from the euthanasia movement. SignatureCheryl > > I'm afraid you are making some oversimplifications, and I do not know > > of [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > some > education in the issues and also on the range of moral opinions on them. Is there, somehow, a problem with sharing the opinions of people that have studied the biological and ethical issues... > I'm talking about all the ordinary people in the media, in real life and > on Usenet who seem to automatically say, basically, 'put her out of her > misery' when faced with some helpless and hopeless person *without ever > considering* any of the points you have made. ...and trying to educate such people? That's my goal here. In practice, incidentally, even the suggestion of active euthanasia is rare. More often, it's a question of not starting a treatment, or discontinuing one in the presence of continued deterioration. The latter can give surprising results, which can be respected. I know of one recent case where a quite conscious patient had had his blood pressure sustained by a dopamine drip. He had reached toxic levels of dopamine, and had been advised the treatment would have to stop because it would kill him. On the other hand, everyone, including the patient, expected a fatal fall in blood pressure when the dopamine was stopped. He was alert, made his goodbyes, and was surrounded by supportive people when the IV pump was turned off. There had been no indication that his circulation could continue without this drug -- except that it did. Staff and family stood in shock as the blood pressure stayed in the normal range. The patient, after a while, started laughing. A couple of weeks later, he walked out of the hospital. Walking out of the hospital is something about which the bulk of the population has incorrect ideas. Now, there really is no single figure for survival after cardiac arrest, since there are so many variables. If forced to take a single number, though, clinicians often cite that about 10% of patients resuscitated will return to normal life. The numbers are getting better, as more automated defibrillators are available in public places -- CPR, assuming that the heart problem is one that will respond to a defibrillator, is simply a means of buying time to get the defibrillator. >If they haven't already > done [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > recognized as a person, and you are saying that without the higher mental > processes, the she is not a person. You understand my position correctly. > > > "little" is not the same as "none". The latter is indicative of a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Is 'a terminal condition' = 'dead'? How is a body dead if it breathes and > the heart beats? You can take my heart out of my chest, feed it fluids, stimulate it with a pacemaker, and it may beat for a couple of days. I'm still dead. Let me put it this way -- I've had open heart surgery. During that procedure, my heart was deliberately stopped. Did that make me dead? (I did call some people and apologized for missing a meeting, because I was dead at the time.) I had measurable, if slowed, brain function. Indeed, there is a drive now for routine monitoring of brain function during surgery (using brainstem evoked potential) to guard against the rare but horrible complication of a patient becoming conscious during surgery, but paralyzed and unable to ask for help. I don't think any clinician thinks of death as defined by other than brain death. Hearts, for example, are deliberately kept going in brain-dead -- or even partially decapitated -- victims to buy time for transplant donation. > > It's really hard for me to respond unless I am dealing with specific > > medical indications. The Schiavo case is problematic because there is a [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > brain activity alone; mine is broader, but not scientific. Science is > great, but it's not the only tool to use in this situation. Than what is the tool? And consider the specific example of what that would do for organ transplantation. > And the second is that you are talking about the definition of when death > occurs and I am talking about protection and respect for people who are > sick or disabled and are at risk from the euthanasia movement. I simply don't see evidence of a widespread effort to use euthanasia on "life unworthy of life." Indeed, it is rarely justified due to pain, because skilled pain management people can deal with almost any pain. Still, there is an interesting observation from the US state of Oregon, where assisted suicide is legal. The majority of patients given a lethal prescription do not use it, but immediately report improvement in their quality of life, knowing it is available to them. > Cheryl, while I am neither a Christian nor "pro-life", I once was > stunned by hearing Jerry Falwell, of all people, make about the most > concise statement I'd ever heard of the abortion debate. Paraphrasing, > he suggested no one was intending to kill people. He said that > "pro-choice" people simply did not consider fetuses human, and he would > pray that they change their minds. Perhaps "concise" but not really accurate. Most of the pro-choice contingent I know consider a fetus as "human" as any other cell from our body. It is merely not capable of life outside the body, and thus the rights of the mother superceed the rights of the fetus. It doesn't really have anything to do with "humanness" but more so, "personhood". -L. > > Cheryl, while I am neither a Christian nor "pro-life", I once was > > stunned by hearing Jerry Falwell, of all people, make about the most [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > -L. Surely there is a more appropriate group for this discussion. >>>Cheryl, while I am neither a Christian nor "pro-life", I once was >>>stunned by hearing Jerry Falwell, of all people, make about the most [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Surely there is a more appropriate group for this discussion. Probably, but surely you've been posting here (if not to other Usenet newsgroups) long enough to realize that we discuss prety much whatever we choose, here! (Most of us seem to look upon the others as a group of friends, not just fellow cat-lovers - ergo.....) Usually the title of the thread (especially when preceded by an "OT") is an adequate clue that it may be a discussion you choose not to participate in. > Is there a particular level of mental functioning that makes a person > human? Many of the arguments I hear assume that someone who loses - or is > born without? - some minimum level of mental ability and ability to care > for themselves should be quietly and neatly put down. I think the word you're looking for is "consciousness", and yes, lacking at least realistic hope of THAT "level of mental ability", any vertebrate is entitled to a merciful death! (I exclude invertebrates, since no one seems to express much concern for the "right to life" of mollusks and worms.) > I think the word you're looking for is "consciousness", and > yes, lacking at least realistic hope of THAT "level of > mental ability", any vertebrate is entitled to a merciful > death! (I exclude invertebrates, since no one seems to > express much concern for the "right to life" of mollusks and > worms.) We're going to have to agree to disagree on that. SignatureCheryl > As a mental ramble, I very much admired the late Christopher Reeve. Although > he and his family had had to make a devastating adjustment after his spinal [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > was, it was clear there was nothing wrong with his brain. He couldn't move, > but he was very much alive. And definitely conscious, and clearly WANTED to live! People can overcome enormous physical challenges, and still find purpose in their lives. When they are no longer even aware of the world around them, what purpose does it serve to keep a mere shell alive? (TECHNICALLY "alive" - for all practical purposes, Terri Schiavo died fifteen years ago.) > I hope for their sakes the > President and Congress decide to let them wrestle with those issues out of > the public eye. You expect any sort of intelligent, reasonable action on the part of the Shrub? (Dream on!) ....And it would appear the current Congress is just as bad. It really gives one a lot of hope for the short-term future of our country, doesn't it? (NOT!) > And definitely conscious, and clearly WANTED to live! "Wanted to live" is the defining statement here. From all I have read, I doubt Ms. Schiavo really "wanted to" continue to live as she was. > People can overcome enormous physical challenges, and still > find purpose in their lives. When they are no longer even [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > of hope for the short-term future of our country, doesn't > it? (NOT!) Last thing I would want are those two Bush buffoons meddling in my right to die. My skin crawls just thinking about it! -L. My one consolation post-hysterical-fiasco of GOP congressional members, Dubya, and his little bro Jebbie jumping in w/all 4 feet to the poor woman's medical and moral dilemma is that according to all the polls by media as well as gov't 411-gatherers, they succeeded in alienating over 80% of both non-GOP and the GOP faithful, as over and over polltakers were told the matter should have been respected as a "family matter". Surprise.... >> As a mental ramble, I very much admired the late Christopher Reeve. >> Although [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > as bad. It really gives one a lot of hope for the short-term future of > our country, doesn't it? (NOT!)
|
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.