NationStates Jolt Archive

With all the media attention for the Terri Shindler-Sciavo case and all the abortion topics on the forums I thought it was time to bring back the euthanasia debate. For those interested in the case I mention: Terri has been braindead for 15 years. Her husband wishes the lifesupport to end, her parents oppose this. However, I wish to make this a little more broad and talk about Euthanasia in general. Note: I am somewhat biased in favour, which my post will show. However, I can be convinced through arguments.

First, I simplify things by assuming there are two main categories of viewpoints on life.

Number 1 is what I will call "the sacred life" philosophy. This side argues that all human life has a high intrinsic value, regardless of the actual quality or quantity of life and regardless of the actual person involved. This reasoning leads to the conclusions that one should be kept alive even during intense suffering, that one should preserve and promote life even in cases of overpopulation and that the life of a massmurdering maniac still is worth saving. The basis of this philosophy is often found in religion, specifically a "soul" argument or "it is not up to us to determine the time of our death. That is up to God". Humans are actors, God is the director. You do not just have a right to live - it is your duty.
As a result this philosophy tends to be dogmatic and does not allow debate. Intruigingly enough most advocates of the "God should decide" viewpoint do support procedures that extend life instead of accepting Gods decision.

Number 2 is what I call "the valued life" philosophy. This side argues that human life is just a fact and not intrinsically a good or bad thing. Not life, but the person living that life is what is valuable. And, the keypoint, the only person that can decide if that life is valuable or not is that person him(her)self. Humans are not just actors, but also the directors of their own life.
This reasoning implies that as long as the "burden of life", as perceived by the person living it, is lower than the "capacity to enjoy it" he should stay alive. The moments the burden becomes too much according to the person himself, for whatever reason, he, as director, should however be allowed to end it.
The first downside of this philosophy is that it is not absolute as number 1 is, but gradual. This means the question "where do you draw the line" comes back everywhere.
e.g. Can an adult decide to end his life ? If so, why can't a child ? Where does one draw the line ?
The second downside is that allowing people to kill themselves immediately the moment they feel bad is not a good idea. Someone who just broke up e.g. may have a deathwish, but this suffering will probably end - even though he doesn't see it that way. There must IOW be a safetynet of some sorts - and who decides which system is good ?
The third is that it requires people to make choices in advance, determining which future situations they would consider unacceptable (no longer recognising your chldren, lying in a coma) - because they may no longer be able to in the future.

So.. let the debate begin. Which side do you support and why ? Or are you on side 3, 4 or 5 ?

Mrs. Shindler-Sciavo died 15 years ago. She's brain dead; there is no chance of her just waking up. She isn't able of conscience thought; she is a living breathing vegatable.

Pull the plug, have the funeral, and move on.

That's what Terri Schaivo must be thinking about now. Fifteen years is long enough to keep that poor woman in persistently vegetative state.

I agree... and it should be him that should decide, right?

If she's braindead then she isn't suffering. If she isn't suffering then the crux of the death with dignity argument is pretty much throw out the window. However, medical science may one day find a cure for braindeath and it is possible that her brain will repair itself given time. Unlikely, but it happens.
However, for all practical purposes she is dead, as has been pointed out. So, the question becomes a financial one. Is it worth the cost of perserving her in the hope that she may one day be ressurrected?
The ancient Egyptians would have said yes and I agree with them. I say this not because I feel that human life has an intrinsic value. I say this because I believe that we should look death in the eye and spit in his face before kicking him in what passes for his gonads. I'm not one who accepts the idea that it is the destiny of mortals to die. I believe that we should all strive for immortality. But, that is just me.

Perhaps a compromise can be reached. After all, there are cheaper ways of preserving her. Just replace her blood with antifreeze and put her head in a jar of liquid nitrogen. Its cheap and it slows decay. When medical science eventualy finds a cure for death they can wake her up and slap her with an absurdly large medical bill.

Mrs. Shindler-Sciavo died 15 years ago. She's brain dead; there is no chance of her just waking up. She isn't able of conscience thought; she is a living breathing vegatable.

Pull the plug, have the funeral, and move on.

She isn't braindead. She does not require artificial breathing to keep her alive. She only needs a feeding tube to keep her alive.

That's what Terri Schaivo must be thinking about now. Fifteen years is long enough to keep that poor woman in persistently vegetative state.


How do you know that is what she wishes for? Maybe she would like to be able to see her parents? Maybe she wonders why her "hubby" has a new family of his own?

I won't debate this issue, but there are a few pieces of info you don't seem to be taking into consideration.

1. Mr Sciavo has not permitted Mrs Sciavo to have an MRI or any other test to determine her capabilites in over 10 years.

2. Mr Sciavo has not permitted Mrs Sciavo to have any form of speech or physical therapy. He has also not allowed her to be moved to the day room for any social interraction. His attempt to block her family from visiting was overturned in the courts.

3. Mr Sciavo is the executor of a settlement of over $1,000,000.00 for the care of Mrs Sciavo for the rest of her life. Mr Sciavo would be the sole beneficiary of the remainder of that settlement upon Mrs Sciavo's death. He would also have sole ownership of their joint properties (house, vacation property, investments, etc.)

4. Mrs Sciavo's parents have documentation from 33 doctors that have examined her and determined that she is rehabilitable. This includes, with therapy, to learn to swallow so that she would not need a feeding tube. They feel, with therapy, she could even learn to talk again.

5. Upon the removal of the feeding tube, you do not actually starve to death...you dehydrate, go into a coma, and die. This takes several days, sometimes as much as 2-3 weeks. The last few days of this process the person's tongue will swell, protrude from the lips, and hinder breathing. The mucous membranes (nasal passages, mouth, lungs, throat) and lips will dry out, split, and bleed. The eyes will dry out causing the eyelids to stick to the eyeball, and sometimes tear the eye's surface. There is a certain amount of discomfort as people who die this way, even those in coma, will moan, cry out and thrash around. This is definitely not a "dignified" death, but a painful prolonged death. Lethal injection would be preferrable to this hell.

Now, with something other than ethical differences to consider, discuss the ethics of Mrs Sciavo's case.

Edit: I forgot to mention that Mr Sciavo has a live-in girlfriend and two children with her. If he were to divorce Mrs Sciavo, he would have to forfeit half of their joint property to her new guardian for her care.

How do you know that is what she wishes for? Maybe she would like to be able to see her parents? Maybe she wonders why her "hubby" has a new family of his own?
If God wants her to live, He will give her the voice to say "Put that damn tube back in."

I'd just like to point out that for all of you advocating the removal of the feeding tube (not life support, it's a feeding tube, don't try to spit it into something it's not); failure to feed a patient is considered criminally negligent homicide.

Of course, unless liberals term of "convenient"

I'd have to say that I'm firmly in the second camp, although with a few minor caveats.

The aged and terminally ill should indeed have the right, as masters of their own fates, to determine when they are ready to leave this world, and should be allowed to do so with dignity, but also should be required to do so in a manner that is conscientious of loved ones left behind, i.e. no suicides that will be profoundly disturbing to others, such as gunshot wounds, exsanguination, etc.

Those who are physically healthy, but suffering from depression or other psychological problems, are arguably not of sound enough mind to make such decisions. Depression is a treatable illness and as such should not be considered a state in which personal life-death decisions are valid.

As to the argument of God, souls, and the ineffable and inscrutable plan of the divine for our lives, I'd argue that we have been given free will and as such our decisions are taken into account, if God is indeed omniscient, so we shouldn't be second-guessing God, now should we?

I won't debate this issue, but there are a few pieces of info you don't seem to be taking into consideration.

1. Mr Sciavo has not permitted Mrs Sciavo to have an MRI or any other test to determine her capabilites in over 10 years.

2. Mr Sciavo has not permitted Mrs Sciavo to have any form of speech or physical therapy. He has also not allowed her to be moved to the day room for any social interraction. His attempt to block her family from visiting was overturned in the courts.

3. Mr Sciavo is the executor of a settlement of over $1,000,000.00 for the care of Mrs Sciavo for the rest of her life. Mr Sciavo would be the sole beneficiary of the remainder of that settlement upon Mrs Sciavo's death. He would also have sole ownership of their joint properties (house, vacation property, investments, etc.)

4. Mrs Sciavo's parents have documentation from 33 doctors that have examined her and determined that she is rehabilitable. This includes, with therapy, to learn to swallow so that she would not need a feeding tube. They feel, with therapy, she could even learn to talk again.

5. Upon the removal of the feeding tube, you do not actually starve to death...you dehydrate, go into a coma, and die. This takes several days, sometimes as much as 2-3 weeks. The last few days of this process the person's tongue will swell, protrude from the lips, and hinder breathing. The mucous membranes (nasal passages, mouth, lungs, throat) and lips will dry out, split, and bleed. The eyes will dry out causing the eyelids to stick to the eyeball, and sometimes tear the eye's surface. There is a certain amount of discomfort as people who die this way, even those in coma, will moan, cry out and thrash around. This is definitely not a "dignified" death, but a painful prolonged death. Lethal injection would be preferrable to this hell.

Now, with something other than ethical differences to consider, discuss the ethics of Mrs Sciavo's case.

Edit: I forgot to mention that Mr Sciavo has a live-in girlfriend and two children with her. If he were to divorce Mrs Sciavo, he would have to forfeit half of their joint property to her new guardian for her care.

It's amazing that in this country, animals are given more rights then disabled people. Would you make a dog die from dehydration? No, you'd be arrested for animal abuse. People talk about gay rights and all of this stuff, but disabled people are basically forgotten by society and treated as less then human. Don't believe me? Pretend to be in a wheelchair, go to a job interview (for a job which you are definately qualified for) and see what happens. You won't be given a chance compared to people are mobile.

If God wants her to live, He will give her the voice to say "Put that damn tube back in."

What does God have to do with this?

Would you like to see yourself die from dehydration over a period of 2 weeks? I don't think you would.

Rather than argue the merits of a case I know nothing about; I will speak in more general terms: I don't know.

Pretty general huh? I simply cannot imagine a government function that would be able to create and maintain a system with sufficient oversight to handle this problem effectively.

That being said; sometimes people are better off ending their lives than living them. Its a hard thing to say, but there are pains in this world that would simply be cruel to force a person to live through until they mercifully die of old age, long after their body has ceased to function.

So the principle of death with dignity I can agree with. The practice I cannot support, because I've never seen indications that the government can handle such things effectively. So I don't know of a solution on a government level.

It's amazing that in this country, animals are given more rights then disabled people. Would you make a dog die from dehydration? No, you'd be arrested for animal abuse. People talk about gay rights and all of this stuff, but disabled people are basically forgotten by society and treated as less then human. Don't believe me? Pretend to be in a wheelchair, go to a job interview (for a job which you are definately qualified for) and see what happens. You won't be given a chance compared to people are mobile.

Suggest that we execute criminals by withholding food and water, and listen to the demands for human rights for the criminal. I know what you mean by employers avoiding handicapped people. I had to have a hip replacement almost 3 years ago. I had been with my employer for almost 3 years, had had 2 promotions, and had gotten a raise 2 months before I found out about the needed surgery. One week before the operation, I was fired. When I asked why, they merely said that it wasn't anything I had done wrong, but that it was just for the best. My doctors were great. They billed the entire expected expenses to the insurance company before my policy was cancelled. They also had me up and walking without so much as a limp, within 90 days. At that point, my old employer contacted me and offered me my old job. Ha!!

iMerge with topic "Take This Damn Tube Out!".

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

I won't debate this issue, but there are a few pieces of info you don't seem to be taking into consideration.

1. Mr Sciavo has not permitted Mrs Sciavo to have an MRI or any other test to determine her capabilites in over 10 years.

2. Mr Sciavo has not permitted Mrs Sciavo to have any form of speech or physical therapy. He has also not allowed her to be moved to the day room for any social interraction. His attempt to block her family from visiting was overturned in the courts.

3. Mr Sciavo is the executor of a settlement of over $1,000,000.00 for the care of Mrs Sciavo for the rest of her life. Mr Sciavo would be the sole beneficiary of the remainder of that settlement upon Mrs Sciavo's death. He would also have sole ownership of their joint properties (house, vacation property, investments, etc.)

4. Mrs Sciavo's parents have documentation from 33 doctors that have examined her and determined that she is rehabilitable. This includes, with therapy, to learn to swallow so that she would not need a feeding tube. They feel, with therapy, she could even learn to talk again.

5. Upon the removal of the feeding tube, you do not actually starve to death...you dehydrate, go into a coma, and die. This takes several days, sometimes as much as 2-3 weeks. The last few days of this process the person's tongue will swell, protrude from the lips, and hinder breathing. The mucous membranes (nasal passages, mouth, lungs, throat) and lips will dry out, split, and bleed. The eyes will dry out causing the eyelids to stick to the eyeball, and sometimes tear the eye's surface. There is a certain amount of discomfort as people who die this way, even those in coma, will moan, cry out and thrash around. This is definitely not a "dignified" death, but a painful prolonged death. Lethal injection would be preferrable to this hell.

Now, with something other than ethical differences to consider, discuss the ethics of Mrs Sciavo's case.

Edit: I forgot to mention that Mr Sciavo has a live-in girlfriend and two children with her. If he were to divorce Mrs Sciavo, he would have to forfeit half of their joint property to her new guardian for her care.

I would like to know where you get your information from, since information tends to get manipulated, especially when it has some to do with politics or religion. I am not saying you are wrong, I don't think I know enough to make that decision.

I do agree, that doesn't sound like death with dignity. She should be given a leathal injection, instead of just having the feeding tube removed. A lethal injection would be euthanasia. Removing the feeding tube, is just letting her die, but since euthanasia isn't legal in Flordia, all they can do is let her die.

From what I knew, most of which I don't remember right now, I was on the husband's side, but maybe I don't know enough.

What does God have to do with this?

Would you like to see yourself die from dehydration over a period of 2 weeks? I don't think you would.
If I were unresponsive and in a condition I could not recover from like this persistent vegetative state, I'd want it to end. I doubt I'd know the difference between dehydrating and drowning at that point.

If I were unresponsive and in a condition I could not recover from like this persistent vegetative state, I'd want it to end. I doubt I'd know the difference between dehydrating and drowning at that point.


Yes but what did god have to do with it?

The whole point of this situation is this: Get yourself a living will, and make everyone absolutely sure what you want done.

Basically, as there was never anything written down. Infact, it is curious that he had promised to care for her at the time of the lawsuit judgement. Then a couple of months later, he says she wanted to be left to die. It's his word against her family. I say just let her family take care of her. He has another family already, I'm sure he has no other motives. :rolleyes:

I would like to know where you get your information from, since information tends to get manipulated, especially when it has some to do with politics or religion. I am not saying you are wrong, I don't think I know enough to make that decision.

I do agree, that doesn't sound like death with dignity. She should be given a leathal injection, instead of just having the feeding tube removed. A lethal injection would be euthanasia. Removing the feeding tube, is just letting her die, but since euthanasia isn't legal in Flordia, all they can do is let her die.

From what I knew, most of which I don't remember right now, I was on the husband's side, but maybe I don't know enough.

My mother was an RN, and I originally was a vet med major. I have also read up on the subject. Imagine what your body feels like on a hot day without anything to drink. Your mouth is dry, your lips split, your tongue feels the size of an innertube, your muscles cramp, your head hurts, your vision is fuzzy, and you feel faint. Why would someone with brain damage feel anything different? Now, imagine that discomfort turning to agony and growing worse and worse and going on for days and days.

it comes down to me, to a couple of considerations, including a rather cold hearted one. First, What is the person's wishes? If those are not clearly known before the catastrophic event, I'm inclined to lean towards preserving life. In the Schiavo case, there is enough question about what her wishes would be that I'm inclined to maintain life support, especially such minimal interventions. Second, it's economics. If there is an agency or person or group willing to accept the burden of supporting such a person, then I see no overwhelming need for euthenasia. Again, in the Schiavo case, this applies. The "husband" has apparantly abdicated any real intention of tending to his wife, but her family is more than prepared to step in.
HOWEVER, in the cases where a person has left documentation of their desires, and with an impartial evaluation to determine their actual mental state, I have no problems with removing life support. As far as actually committing euthenasia, I admit I am less comfortable, but I would prefer that to allowing someone to die by bits over days or a couple of weeks due to lack of simple nutrients.
Finally, in reference to the Schiavo case, I'm not in favor of removing her feeding tube. Her "gaurdian" has every motivation to see her dead. I've also seen reports I consider credible about his failure to provide even minimal rehabilitation early on. This deprived her of her best opportunity, if any, of recovering any degree from her injuries. Having failed this basic obligation, he's forfeited his rights I believe to make decisions about her her care.

If I were unresponsive and in a condition I could not recover from like this persistent vegetative state, I'd want it to end. I doubt I'd know the difference between dehydrating and drowning at that point.

The point is, 33 medical professionals say that she is not in a persistent vegetative state, and that she could respond to therapy. Her parents and siblings say that she tries to verbalize. Her husband, however, has not allowed her to have any new tests done in years. He won't allow cameras to document her abilities or lack of abilites. He was gung-ho on getting her the best of care for the rest of her life until he got the settlement from the hospital. Then, all of a sudden, he remembered that she had told him she wanted to die rather than be kept alive. :confused:

Before you make a decision on whether Terri should live or die you need to know all of the facts.

http://www.terrisfight.org/

This is yet another circular argument, so I'll post my opinion and that will be all. No arguments from me.

The case of Mrs. Sciavo aside (because there are way too many factors involved that I am unaware of) I believe that people should be able to die when they wish. If a person is undergoing intense suffering, let them end it. Even if you wouldn't want the same for yourself, how can you deny it for another, who is in charge of their own life? If I was dying of lung cancer (and I will be in the future, the way I smoke) and no treatment was working and I was suffering and had a gun, it would be lights out time. And if someone tried to stop me, they would be leaving with a few bullet wounds.

The only thing I can say about people in vegetative states is: if it was in their will, or their immediate family says yes, do it. Otherwise it is impossible to know whether the individual would want the plug pulled.

It just came on the news. Terri's feeding tube has been removed.

My mother was an RN, and I originally was a vet med major. I have also read up on the subject. Imagine what your body feels like on a hot day without anything to drink. Your mouth is dry, your lips split, your tongue feels the size of an innertube, your muscles cramp, your head hurts, your vision is fuzzy, and you feel faint. Why would someone with brain damage feel anything different? Now, imagine that discomfort turning to agony and growing worse and worse and going on for days and days.

I meant the other parts of your post.