What would you do?

[Garland]

I think the problem is this: discontinuing medical treatment is a passive choice - they're not actively doing anything, just refraining from doing more. By administering a lethal injection or somesuch, they'd be actively taking steps to kill her. They go from omitting to do something, to choosing to kill by a deliberate act. It's a technical distinction, but one is homicide and the other is merely the exercise of medical discretion.

If there's absolutely no possibility of her experiencing any sensation - conscious or unconscious - then I understand the decision.

Not administering medical treatment is a passive act. If the tube had never been inserted, and a decision was made not to insert such a tube, then your point would stand. Removing the feeding tube is in fact a deliberate act meant to cause her death. I see no distinction.

[Raistlin]

Removing the feeding tube is in fact a deliberate act meant to cause her death. I see no distinction.

I, also, see no moral distinction. However, there is a legal distinction. The fact that passive is more acceptable than active(injections) is indisputable unless the law is changed(doubtful).

[Lone]

So what you're saying is...you'd be in favor of it if it only took two days, for example? Two days of suffering is better than two weeks?
Either way, it's a moot point: she can't feel a damn thing. C'mon, people, keep up now.

No two days is even bad enough to suffer. Her death should be quick to stop her from suffering in any ways.

[Raistlin]

No two days is even bad enough to suffer. Her death should be quick to stop her from suffering in any ways.

*smashes head against keyboard*

SHE'S NOT SUFFERING AT ALL SHE CAN'T FEEL A THING ARRGGGHHHH!!!!

*jumps off a cliff*

[nik0tine]

Although I am not 100% sure of my stance on this, I can say that I feel you Raistlin. I feel you.

[fire_of_avalon]

*smashes head against keyboard*

SHE'S NOT SUFFERING AT ALL SHE CAN'T FEEL A THING ARRGGGHHHH!!!!

*jumps off a cliff*

Here, I am confused again. I do agree that Terri is in all likelihood gone from that body, however the body still moves involuntarily. If the body functions at all, it means nerves are still working. If nerves are still working, doesn't that mean on some level the body would experience pain?

Then again, when does a human body go from being human to just being a body? Is it right to let a body die like that?

I don't really understand the hatred of euthanasia in this country. We let criminals die in similar methods, but we can't let someone choose to die this way? We can't let people who will never live again go this way?

I do tend to forget, though. Not many see criminals as real people.

I just don't understand the mindset that wants to keep this body alive. I'm not an expert on anything, but I have been looking into this, and I've seen pictures of Terri. It is very, very hard to believe, just by her eyes, that the person is there anymore, or even that the person is capable of ever being there again.

[The Captain]

"I just don't understand the mindset that wants to keep this body alive. I'm not an expert on anything, but I have been looking into this, and I've seen pictures of Terri. It is very, very hard to believe, just by her eyes, that the person is there anymore, or even that the person is capable of ever being there again."

Very well stated good madam. I sincerely hope that in the end, what is best for Terri is what trumps all here and in some cases, death may well be better than prolonged semi-"life".

Take care all.

[Raistlin]

Here, I am confused again. I do agree that Terri is in all likelihood gone from that body, however the body still moves involuntarily. If the body functions at all, it means nerves are still working. If nerves are still working, doesn't that mean on some level the body would experience pain?

If she could feel pain, they wouldn't have done this, don't you think? However, it's a good question, and one I will look into.

[udsuna]

I'm no neurologist, but there is a known medical condition where people are incapable of recognizing pain. Very rare, there are only a handful in the US, but they do exist. It involves a failure from the back of the brain (which knows how to recognize pain) to the front, (which says "oh, damn, this hurts"). The persons with this disorder can recieve horrible injuries, without what we call "pain", because their front isn't getting the message. She doesn't HAVE a front of the brain, for all intents, so it's the same result.

To go with a metaphor. Let's say I'm the back of the brain, sitting there switchboarding and keeping everything going. I get the nerve responce saying "hey, this ain't cool". I send the "get away" message back, then tell the concious part of the mind that the body is displeased (which is pain). However, there's no one on at the other end of the line.

So, the question is almost like the metaphysical "tree falling in the woods". Biologically, yes, the signals are being sent. But they never make it to their destination. Pull out her brain and replace it with a healthy one, and that new inhabitant would be quite upset. But, for her, it feels no different than any other day for the last 15 years.

[Raistlin]

Looking into this some...

Bradley, who has not examined Schiavo, did not attempt to say whether she is in a persistent vegetative state. But he said that for someone who is in this state, "there is no conscious perception of pain."

In fact, Cranford said, Schiavo's inability to follow objects or people with her eyes was one of the main reasons he concluded that she is in a persistent vegetative state. He testified so in court.

"This diagnosis is so straightforward in her case," Cranford said.

For that and other reasons, Maxfield concluded, and testified in court, that Schiavo is not in a persistent vegetative state.

"There's no treatment, no cure. Nothing known to science will help this woman."
-- Dr. James Barnhill, in 2000, testifying in Pinellas-Pasco Circuit Court.

What the courts say about Schiavo's brain

In a June 6 opinion that rouched on the medical evidence in the Schiavo case, the 2nd District Court of Appeal wrote" "Although the physicians were not in complete agreement concerning the extent of the daughter's brain damage, they all agreed that the brain scans showed extensive permanent damage to her brain. They only debate between the doctors was whether she had a small amount of isolated living tissue in her cerebral cortex or whether she had no living tissue in her cerebral cortex."

Source: http://www.sptimes.com/2003/10/28/ne..._Terri_S.shtml

Q: What is a “vegetative state”?
A: A person in a vegetative state has experienced damage to the brain, and may be described as being unaware of surroundings, outside things or events, usually with periods of “eyes-open.” In this state, the person actually wakes and sleeps. Important body functions continue to work, including breathing, regular heart rate, and temperature and blood pressure control, and even sometimes, swallowing.
When awake, this person does not respond in a meaningful way to people or sounds, cannot feel pain, does not talk or walk.

Q: Do patients in persistent or permanent vegetative states experience pain or suffering?
A: No. The parts of the brain necessary for consciousness, that feel pain or suffering, are not working. Moving their arms or legs in response to unpleasant feelings or sounds are only reflexes.

Q: What can we do once a patient has been diagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state?
A: Three choices are possible: Provide aggressive medical treatment to keep the patient alive. Doctors will work to remove the mechanical ventilator, surgically implant a aracheostomy tube in the patient’s throat to protect him/her against choking and start medical nutrition (through a tube). If the patient survives, he or she will be transferred, when stable, to a long-term nursing care facility.
Try the above treatment plan for a specific time with the understanding that if no signs of recovery occurs, either some or all treatment will be stopped. Patients without any artificial treatment, including tubal feeding and fluids, usually die within 1-2 weeks.
Withdrawing artificial life-support immediately, including the breathing machine and medical nutrition (food) and fluids will allow the patient to die without discomfort. Since that part of the brain that no longer sends messages telling the brain to be aware of and experience pain, the patient will die without discomfort, usually within 2 weeks.

Source: https://ssl.capwiz.com/congressorg/i...ua_congressorg

There was no agreement by the doctors about Terri's condition, but the majority concluded, as did the courts, that Terri was in a "persistent vegetative state," which, according to this, would mean she does not, indeed, feel pain.

[Raistlin]

I'm double-posting here so people will notice it's been updated.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/20/schiavo/index.html

I've been checking CNN several times a day ever since the big controversy Friday over the removel of the feeding tube. It's just been updated with the Republicans in Congress trying to pass another form of the "Terri's Law" bill passed by Jeb Bush in '03(that was later ruled unconstitutional) to force the issue to federal court. The Congress, even if they pass this bill, does not have the authority to mandate the reinsertion of the feeding tube, but if the bill is passed, then the federal court can order it as they investigate into the matter. The vote is scheduled for 12:01 AM on Monday(I assume EST, which is about 7 hours from now).

Democrats are furious, saying this undermines the Florida judicial system, which has already ruled on the matter several times over in the past few years(both in the lower courts and in the Florida court of appeals, while the Florida Supreme Court and the US Supreme Court have dismissed petitions by the parents - the former, presumably, due to lack of evidence, and the latter, again presumably, due to lack of jurisdiction).

"Florida courts for seven years have found by a standard of clear and convincing evidence, that it is Terri Schiavo's wishes that she not remain in a permanent vegetative state," said Rep. Robert Wexler, a Florida Democrat. "It is not the place of Congress in the 11th hour in the most abusive fashion to undermine the Florida judicial system."

A-bloody-men.

Rep. David Weldon, a Florida Republican, told CNN that there were "a number of factual issues here that I believe warrant federal review."

I like how he doesn't specifically mention any.

"Let's at least give Terri Schiavo's case the benefit of the doubt," he said.

This case has been to the courts several times over, and affirmed by the court of appeals twice over. Doesn't that cover any doubt?

"Please gentleman, don't use this bill as your own personal agenda," Mary Schindler said.

Sort of ironic, don't you think, that it's some of the Republicans using it as their own political soapbox?

Schiavo's father, Bob Schindler, said, "We've got to safeguard other disabled people and the elderly."

How does this effect either the disabled or the elderly or anyone else not in a "persistent vegetative state?"

The bill would give jurisdiction in the Schiavo case to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, which covers an area from the Georgia border on the northeast to south of Naples on the southwest coast. Tampa, Jacksonville and Orlando are within the district.

*sighs* I'm not an expert on consitutional matters, but I believe court jurisdiction is not for Congress to decide.

Subpoenas issued Friday by a House committee to the Schiavo family -- including Terri Schiavo and caretakers -- were an "abuse of power," a House Democratic leadership aide said Saturday.

*agrees*

Schiavo's feeding tube has been removed twice before, most recently in 2003. That year, the Florida Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional a law that authorized Florida Gov. Jeb Bush to resume the woman's feedings six days after a court ordered they be stopped.

If Jeb Bush hadn't unconstitionally abused his power, this fiasco would be over by now.

Last week, both the Florida Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court refused to overrule the order to remove the feeding tube.

I don't think it was the first time, either.

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/20/schiavo/index.html

Well, an interesting development. I know I'll be keeping an eye on it.

[Harvest Moon]

you don't know the full story alot of you, and living in Tampa Florida I can tell you the whole thing and why this man sickens me to no ends.. He's like Scott Peterson but with a legitamite reasoning I swear to God.

1: It's a FEEDING TUBE DISCONNECTION, meaning SHE WILL STARVE TO DEATH. Just because she can't move her limbs or anything doesn't mean she can't feel herself slowly fading as her body consumes itself for nourishment. Jesus Christ on the smurfing cross, we don't even do that to serial killers!

2: She had oppurtunities to go to physichal therapy, but that son of a bitch would not anyone near her, he would not even let her leave the hospital when nurses had offerd her to take her outside to atleast see the sun, three years it's been sense she's seen the sky. Three. That's horrible, what "loving husband" would do that? What human being would do that?

3: He has another girl you notice, what a smurfing quincidence. This man has been waiting for sometime to get rid of the only thing holding him back. (Like Scott Peterson.) I KNOW he feels absolutely no guilt for this "descision" because he's been watching her slowly die for three years, he just found a way to make his grand master scheme go quicker.

He's a bastard, plain and simple. I'm actually pro-death, but when i think pro-death i think euthinisia like they give dogs. You mean to tell me it's animal abuse if i starve it to death but because the man or woman can't scream it's suddenly okay? I wonder if the judge that granteed this terrible deed even bleeds.

This is one of the reasons I have trouble believing in a God, if there was a God he would give me a gun with two bullets. Why two?

One to kill her, so she could finnaly die quickly and mercifuly. Sure a euthunisia would be better but the goverment is foul and greedy, so a shot by a bullet will have to do.

The other to shoot that souless entity in the spinal cord so he himself would become a lifeless vegitable. That way someone can unhook his feeding tube, watch his ass starve to death and he can see his own sins unfold right infront of his eyes.

As for the judge, the idea that God's summoning weaponry for me to unleash justice on the deserving would be proof enough that his soul is soon enough doomed to the Hell mouth, but another low-carb snack for the devil's undieing hunger. As he so ruchly deserves.

I get called many things by friends and family. Cold, creepy, mean, uncaring, and even evil. But I would never EVER commit such a hanus act as that. The very idea to watch someone go like that, someone who loved me, what does that say about ME? Have you no respect for YOURSELF?!

I would let someone give me an enthustisia.
I would let someone shoot me.
But as sure as i'm sitting here writing this you can bet your first born child on it if I was going to die like that poor woman is right now I would get back at you. I swear to The Great Spirit, I would get back at you.

And somehow or another I'm going to get back at this guy to. Mom's a Pagan too and always is giving me that karma , where the smurf is his karma, he deserves only the most peverse and monsterous spells my mind can think up. I only refraim from casting such spells because I would not disrespect The Godess like that by asking her to do such a thing..

But he will pay. I will find a way.

[Raistlin]

1: It's a FEEDING TUBE DISCONNECTION, meaning SHE WILL STARVE TO DEATH. Just because she can't move her limbs or anything doesn't mean she can't feel herself slowly fading as her body consumes itself for nourishment. Jesus Christ on the smurfing cross, we don't even do that to serial killers!

You accuse me of not knowing all the facts, yet you don't even know that those in a "persistent vegatative state" can't feel pain, despite the fact that I've posted as such several times in this very thread, even citing experts!

2: She had oppurtunities to go to physichal therapy, but that son of a bitch would not anyone near her, he would not even let her leave the hospital when nurses had offerd her to take her outside to atleast see the sun, three years it's been sense she's seen the sky. Three. That's horrible, what "loving husband" would do that? What human being would do that?

First off, she can't see. Secondly, expert doctors have testified that no amount of therapy will help, ever. Thirdly, please cite your sources.

3: He has another girl you notice, what a smurfing quincidence. This man has been waiting for sometime to get rid of the only thing holding him back. (Like Scott Peterson.) I KNOW he feels absolutely no guilt for this "descision" because he's been watching her slowly die for three years, he just found a way to make his grand master scheme go quicker.

If it's so obvious to you that he's doing this, why have the courts ruled that Terri wants to die. They know a helluva lot more than you do.

He's a bastard, plain and simple. I'm actually pro-death, but when i think pro-death i think euthinisia like they give dogs. You mean to tell me it's animal abuse if i starve it to death but because the man or woman can't scream it's suddenly okay? I wonder if the judge that granteed this terrible deed even bleeds.

SHE CAN'T FEEL PAIN. Damn, how many times do I have to repeat myself?
Also, more than one judge ruled the same way, including the court of appeals(twice over).

The other to shoot that souless entity in the spinal cord so he himself would become a lifeless vegitable. That way someone can unhook his feeding tube, watch his ass starve to death and he can see his own sins unfold right infront of his eyes.

And what if he's right, and that Terri told him explicitly that she wanted to die? Oh wait, I'm sorry - you never even considered that, despite the fact that judges who have heard ALL THE TESTIMONY(which you haven't, btw) ruled that she did, time and time again.

But I would never EVER commit such a hanus act as that. The very idea to watch someone go like that, someone who loved me, what does that say about ME? Have you no respect for YOURSELF?!

Wow.

And somehow or another I'm going to get back at this guy to. Mom's a Pagan too and always is giving me that karma , where the smurf is his karma, he deserves only the most peverse and monsterous spells my mind can think up. I only refraim from casting such spells because I would not disrespect The Godess like that by asking her to do such a thing..

But he will pay. I will find a way.

Ok, now you're scaring me.

[Raistlin]

Good, I hope you're scared, then maybe JUST MAYBE he might get scared too. Though I doubt it seeing as you have to be capable of EMOTION to feel fear..

...

And here I thought Bush was a prick.. This plain never seices to amaze me in it's utter crapyness, I pray everyday that our country get's bombed by Koriea. Bombed and whiped from the history books.

Holy , man, get some therapy or something.

I also absolutely love how you didn't respond to all my expert-based facts on how she wouldn't actually feel pain and Michael did nothing wrong, and quite possibly is doing the moral thing(according to numerous judges and expert witnesses).

[Raistlin]

Why bother wasting my breath? You're a brick-headed individual from up north CONVINCED that you know everything when infact you know nothing as your "evidence" is nothing but half-truth documents printed on the new york times or whatever and is biased anyway.

Please be specific as to how my quotes from doctors saying, "she's in a persistent vegetative state" and from the courts stating, "we have concluded she's in a persistant vegetative state" and from more doctors, even those outside of the Terri case, saying, "those in the persistent vegetative state can't feel pain" and more from the courts stating, "we have concluded that Terri would have wanted to die" IS IN ANY REMOTE WAY TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT. And you call ME brick-headed, when you refuse to hear even the most basic facts of the case? Good god.

And it's not a political issue, it's a humanitarian issue.

You're right: it's not a political issue. But it's sure as hell not a moral issue, either. The SOLE issue here is whether Terri would have wanted to die or not, and the courts say yes. What's wrong with that?

You think you're so sure of yourself? Go to a hospital one day. Take your smart happy pappy ass down to a hospital and sit there, just sit there, and watch those people that have done nothing wrong but have been cursed to just lay there in a bed and watch the years fly by and they can't even say "kill me" because for some reason or another those "conservatives" God couldn't give them a mercy killing and your "liberal" goverment wouldn't.

I know doctors. My uncle was a surgeon for the Navy. My aunt was a psychiatrist. One of my teachers was a doctor(and psychologist) who worked in trauma before. I've studied medical ethics, and seen more horrible pictures than most people could ever conceive of. Don't give me this soapbox bull that I don't understand what the hell goes on in a hospital.

Sit there and watch them, sit there and look into those glass eyes, then you tell me what you know and don't know

Well, you don't know a helluva lot, as far as I can see. Let me ask you this: do you think Terri's in a "persistent vegetative state?"


EDIT: woah, who deleted his post?

EDIT2: woah, his second-to-last post was deleted too. Is this a mod or does he concede his complete lack of an argument?

EDIT3: ok, nevermind. xD