NationStates Jolt Archive

Whoa whoa, whoa, whoa, that’s a major extrapolation, dose a person not have a right to die, that woman is not a woman any more, just a living piece of meat to say killing here is akin to taking out the trash is a joke, it must be horrible for her apparently rationality minded husband to see what was his wife like that, and if there’s is anything left of her in then its a living death.

I can sense your trying to compare euthanasia to the nazi culls of the mid 30's, this is why living wills need to be made a legality so all this ethical mine field can be cleared up, everyone should be required to state in front of several witnesses what they would like to happen to them in cases like this.

Funny how I never mentioned the Nazis, because that's not what I had in mind. Thanks for putting words in my mouth. Tell me, where DID you manage to develop your mental telepathy -- since it's quite faulty.

Look at what you're saying, "Does a person not have a right to die?" I would say yes -- if he or she clearly communicated that they wished to. This is not the case in the Shiavo case. What IS happening here is that her husband says that she would have wanted it. So what about the thousands of people now warehoused in hospices and asylums who cannot speak for themselves? This is making the precedent that anyone who can become legally, their guardian, can say: "This person has no quality of life. Even though they are not on life support, withhold food and water from them because they are better off dead."

You say that, "that woman is not a woman any more, just a living piece of meat." That has to be the most utterly disgusting sentiment I've heard in a long time. That "living piece of meat" may be damaged, but she is a human being, despite the extreme disrespect for that in the words you chose.

I'm also glad that you can be so sure that she is nothing but a "piece of meat", since even the doctors disagree on this case. Five were consulted: two appointed by Michael Shiavo, two by the Schindlers, and one by the court. Both doctors for Michael Shiavo said there was no hope. Both doctors for the Schindlers said there was a possibility of some rehabilitation. The court appointed doctor sided with Shiavo. That's pretty close, no? A simple majority, yes, but it's not like all five said, "No way." It's not even as if FOUR of them said "no way."

There are two very bad effects I can see:

1) Federal government is now interfering in state's jurisdiction -- which seems to be unconstitutional under the 10th Amendment.

2) People who are considered too inconvenient to society: open season has now opened on you. First, the brain-damaged. The next, easy step: those with congenital defects. After all, their quality of life is impaired too. How much further to sufferers of certain diseases, the chronically homeless, et cetera?

Bad precedent, all around.


The person is a vegatable in question. The husband has power of attorney. Seems a pretty open and close case to me.

If you cannot speak for yourself, are dependant on feeding tubes and have made it known you dont want to live as a vegy, whats the problem here?


BTW, finally a interesting thread!!

2) (Katganistan) You, like some one else in this debate on another forum, are trying to liken this to the overzealous eugenics programs of the early 20th century. It is not that, it is a debate over whether or not some one has a right to end some one else's LIFE SUPPORT if they do not have a living will saying they would want that. How people can compare that to the forcible euthanasia of the eugenics era is beyond me

I didn't bring that up -- funny that you and Scouserland both characterize me as having done so. I guess an ad hominem attack is much easier than simply arguing the question.

The person is a vegatable in question. The husband has power of attorney. Seems a pretty open and close case to me.

If you cannot speak for yourself, are dependant on feeding tubes and have made it known you dont want to live as a vegy, whats the problem here?


BTW, finally a interesting thread!!

Is there a living will?
Did she have that written anywhere?
Or is it merely hearsay?

THAT is the problem.

The other problem is that these ad hominem attacks characterizing me as having compared this situation to Nazi Eugenics and my refuting them are taking the thread off course. Stay on topic.

I didn't bring that up -- funny that you and Scouserland both characterize me as having done so. I guess an ad hominem attack is much easier than simply arguing the question.
You are likening the right of the person with the legal guardianship of a person on life support in a persistant vegetative state to end that life support to forced euthanasia

Proof:
So what about the thousands of people now warehoused in hospices and asylums who cannot speak for themselves? This is making the precedent that anyone who can become legally, their guardian, can say: "This person has no quality of life. Even though they are not on life support, withhold food and water from them because they are better off dead.
You did bring it up as it is the crux of your argument.

You are likening the right of the person with the legal guardianship of a person on life support in a persistant vegetative state to end that life support to forced euthanasia

Proof:

You did bring it up as it is the crux of your argument.

Apparently you did not read all of what I said.

Whoa whoa, whoa, whoa, that’s a major extrapolation, dose a person not have a right to die, that woman is not a woman any more, just a living piece of meat to say killing here is akin to taking out the trash is a joke, it must be horrible for her apparently rationality minded husband to see what was his wife like that, and if there’s is anything left of her in then its a living death.

I can sense your trying to compare euthanasia to the nazi culls of the mid 30's, this is why living wills need to be made a legality so all this ethical mine field can be cleared up, everyone should be required to state in front of several witnesses what they would like to happen to them in cases like this.


If someone does NOT have a living will and made no mention as to der wishes about what they would want to occur in a event like this it SHOULD switch to the person with power of attorney to make these decisions not some fuck nut politicans.

Is there a living will?
Did she have that written anywhere?
Or is it merely hearsay?

THAT is the problem.

The other problem is that these ad hominem attacks characterizing me as having compared this situation to Nazi Eugenics and my refuting them are taking the thread off course. Stay on topic.

no will = power of attorney. The husband then makes the decision. And he has, still dont see the problem here..

Apparently you did not read all of what I said.
Everything you said relevant to this point:
Funny how I never mentioned the Nazis, because that's not what I had in mind. Thanks for putting words in my mouth. Tell me, where DID you manage to develop your mental telepathy -- since it's quite faulty.

Look at what you're saying, "Does a person not have a right to die?" I would say yes -- if he or she clearly communicated that they wished to. This is not the case in the Shiavo case. What IS happening here is that her husband says that she would have wanted it. So what about the thousands of people now warehoused in hospices and asylums who cannot speak for themselves? This is making the precedent that anyone who can become legally, their guardian, can say: "This person has no quality of life. Even though they are not on life support, withhold food and water from them because they are better off dead."
Sounds to me like you are trying to say giving Michael Schiavo or any other legal guardian the right to end life support of a person in a vegetative state is the equivalent of giving ANY guardian the right to end the LIFE of any person not physically or mentally at their best, forced euthanasia.


Not to mention the introduction of the discussion of forced euthanasia by persons with legal guardianship isn't even on topic

Not to mention the introduction of the discussion of forced euthanasia by persons with legal guardianship isn't even on topic

I simply said it sets a bad precedent. You and others are trying to make a three sentence statement I made into some sweeping statement about this particular case.

So basically: you put words into another posters' mouth to dismiss their point, they attempt to clarify that that WAS not their point, and you can continue to nitpick it and continue to derail the topic?

I don't think so. Apologies, Dementedus Yammus -- this is all being split out.

I've probably said this before, but aren't people endowed with the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, I'm not a doctor, so I won't even try to diagnose the problem, but I would think that if she's been in the state she's in for 15 years, a little longer couldn't hurt her, and why not give custody of her over to her parents and let the husband get on with his life with his family.

Let the poor woman die for God's sake and let her die in peace. No one here can claim to have suffered one inch of the degradation or pain that the woman has suffered: if they had I am sure they wouldn't condemn her to life just because it offends their over zealous pro life beliefs. Remember the great quote:

"I think therefore I am"

Does this women think (think as in form definitive thoughts)? All it is is that the heart and lungs are still operating with the help of advanced medical science - thats not thought and therefore its not life.

I know if I ended up like that, I would want my loved ones to pull the plug. Better that than spend the rest of my life as a burden to the doctors and my family. I would never want to live as a vegetable, devoid of all feeling, thought and emotion. Such a fate is worse than death and from what I can tell this woman has done nothing to deserve this. I think to call this woman merely defective is a gross understatement that shows no real understanding of the condition which this woman now exists.

Her parents are clinging to non existent hopes which is their right as human beings. Where would humanity be without hope? It is our saving grace, the ultimate human virtue: the fact that our hope can endure all. However their hope is being cruelly prolonged by her living for every moment she continues to breathe they will live in unbearable uncertainty. This woman is in PVS (Permeanent Vegitive State) - her chances of recovery are next to nil.

And what of her husband? How terrible it must be to see the woman that you loved, that you cared about be turned into a lifeless heap who can longer provide you with love. He would have known her ebst and I think it is safe to say that a husband (who from all evidence loved her with every ounce of his soul) would not give consent to her death if he did not absolutely believe it to be in her best interest.

In Britain we have case law surrounding this (thank God) which means if a person enters PVS then they can be killed if there is no chance of recovery. This must be agreed to by a court commission, the family and the doctors. This is because when a person enters PVS the English law judges them to be no longer a human being and therefore not protected by the laws of the realm (e.g. murder).

Well atleast we now know from the liberal point of view starvation is a decent way to die and in some cases causes Euphoria. So all those people that are supposedly dying from not being able to eat and drink fresh water are actually more happy than those of us that are able to eat and drink all we wish. Problem solved I am canceling my donations to feed the childern.

This issue is tearing our country apart! Across the nation and even in the hallowed halls of our Republic, the question is being asked:

http://www.lowculture.com/archives/images/timemag_bushrove.jpg

To address the point that it is "open season" on this or that:

No substantive rights to remove feeding tubes from brain dead vegetable people are being created by this case, that right has been upheld fully since the practice of pumping the bodies of brain dead vegetative people with nutrients was innagurated.

The legal issue at hand is not whether the right exists to 'pull the plug' but instead whether or not the rules previously on the books - those involving who has the right to make decisions for the bodies of brain dead vegetative people whi left no will on the matter - are to be upheld or overturned.

So far, the case has been brought before nineteen different judges who have all ruled that the power to make such decisions rests in the hands of whomever the person in question delegated them to, in the schiavo case they were delegated with full consent to her husband by virtue of their marriage.

In US law, a person's parents lose the rights of guardianship once a person reaches the age of legal responsibility and consent. When somone legally consents to marry, one of the things to which they consent is the delegation of such powers to their spouse.

No new right has been created for mr schiavo, no precedent has been set which might create new rights for those wishing to remove feeding tubes from the bodies of brain dead vegetative individuals and absolutely no precedent has been set which has any bearing on euthanasia in general.

The laws which are on the books and have been in force for many years are simply being upheld, it is called the Rule of Law.

No substantive rights to remove feeding tubes from brain dead vegetable people are being created by this case, that right has been upheld fully since the practice of pumping the bodies of brain dead vegetative people with nutrients was innagurated.


This is the common misunderstanding that keeps popping up. Mrs Schiavo is not brain dead...she is brain damaged. Major difference. I also don't understand why the diagnosis and recommendations of a Nobel nominated neurologist who examined Mrs Schiavo are dismissed out of hand? Dr. Hammesfahre spend 10 hours, over 2 days performing multiple tests:

http://www.terrisfight.org/documents/Hammesfahrexam.htm

Impression:



The patient is not in coma.

She is alert and responsive to her environment. She responds to specific
people best. She tries to please others by doing activities for which she gets verbal
praise. She responds negatively to poor tone of voice. She responds to music.

She differentiates sounds from voices.

She differentiates specific people's voices from others.

She differentiates music from stray sound.

She attempts to verbalize.

She has voluntary control over multiple extremities

She can swallow.

She is partially blind

She is probably aphasic and has a degree of receptive aphasia.

She can feel pain.

On this last point, it is interesting to observe that the records from Hospice
show frequent medication administered for pain by staff.

ENT: The patient can clearly swallow, and is able to swallow approximately 2 liters of water per day (the daily amount of saliva generated). Water is one of the most difficult things for people to swallow. It is unlikely that she currently needs the feeding tube. She should be evaluated by an Ear Nose and Throat specialist, and have a new swallowing exam.

Take the time to read the entire report. It might change your mind.