Story of today- Feeding tubes?

[ViewtifulJoe]

I don't think anyone has brought this up.
How about Terri Schiavo, who has become brain dead due to a heart attack, what's your side? Right now, I say put them on until a decision has been made, after that either leave them on, or let her have a quick and painless death.

My decision after would be to take them off, because she had expressed that she didn't want to live like that. Her parents feel strongly the other way, but you have to weigh what's best for her against what makes her family feel best.

I, (or someone if i forget ), will explain more if you don't know about this.

[_Ted_]

Here's the story (http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/18/schiavo.brain-damaged/) in case anyone is uninformed.

I really haven't been following this story, but from what I understand this girl has been an invalid for 15 years, her husband wants to let her die and her parents are clinging to some nonexistant hope and want her to continue to live artificially.

[Eihwaz]

Well, if this is what the woman wanted, I say, let her go. The husband is obviously okay with it, and the parents just need to accept the facts: their daughter is dead and gone. Her body might still be alive, but the person they knew...is no more. Of course, she didn't leave any kind of written note behind, which complicates things...I still side with her husband, though. >_>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Eihwaz on 2005-03-22 00:06 ]</font>

[navci]

I read it.
I wish I have something super intelligent to say.
If it was her wish, I'd say it should be obeyed.

[War_Child]

Pull the tube if it was her wish. Nobody should have to live like that.

[anwserman]

I see it this way.

Her husband said she would want to die peacefully.
Her parents want her to live.

I can guarentee, however, that she would have wanted this to turn into the big fucking deal that it has become; In addition, the Constitution has been disregarded and raped for pure political gain.

Cripes sake, let her die and let this whole friggin fiasco be a blimp in the US History - "The Generation Where the US Became the Country of Morons".

Thank you Bush.

[Nicktendonick]

I live in florida, and I know a few people who are connected to this case. From what I've herd, the Husband has gotten death threats from people against him, and so has his girlfriend (he can't marry her because if he divorces Shivo, then he loses his say in the matter) and their 3-year-old daughter gotten death threats. Some thing else i herd was that the parents actually offered the Husband 10 million dollars to just walk away from this case, but he turned it down. Also, I herd that in a few years, her Diabeties will force doctors to amputate her limbs (arms and legs) for her to live, and the parents say that they will allow this to happen.

And the last thing i herd about the case is that the IRS are investagating the parents.

Anyway, this is some of the stuff that I found out. And about the case, I think they should remove the tube, noone should live that way.

[Dhylec]

alive, but not living then what's good is being a live? =|

[Madzozs]

The tube has been out for a few days now already. I think they took it out on Friday. Although now the district judge is not ordering the tube to be put back in so I think she is finally going to get to die.

[HUnewearl_Meira]

Terri Shiavo is the perfect example of why Youthanization should be legal. The big problem Congress has with pulling out her feeding tube is that the cause of death will be starvation, and that's not humane. The humane thing to do would be to kill her. Lethal injection or something like that. Let her die peacefully with a minimum of pain.

As has already been pointed out, she is already dead. Her body lives as an empty husk with no human personality left. When a dog or cat goes stray, we youthanize it after a while. Now we have a human whose level of intelligence has dropped far below that of a dog or cat, but yet, it is insisted that she live? Let her die! Making her live cannot possibly be humane.

[ABDUR101]

Euthanesia should be legal. But no, dear lord, people who are being ravaged by cancers and living as mere shells in comas and unresponsive, no dear lord they have to die the good old fashioned way, starvation, sickness or oldage.(or a very painful death if it's cancer)

Yeah, real fucking humane right? We put down our animals with ailments that are too much for them to handle, but a human life is too much to merely let go with good graces and dignity.

While yes there have been people who have come out of comas and all that, after years, it's a pipe dream that may never come to fruitation, and personally, I would'nt want my body to rot around me in a bed with no dignity.

That, in and of itself, is inhumane. Ask any self-respecting person if they'd wish that fate for themselves, the answer will be a solid no.

Welcome to the world anyway.

[BOC]

if it was her wish, i say let her go.

i know it may be painful for her parents, but really, what good is it doing keeping her alive?

My family went through something quite similar recently, my grandmother on a feeding tube after a severe stroke, and i understand its best sometimes just to let someone go rather than prolong their agony.

It kind of reminds me like the metallica song one, about the soldier who losses his legs, arms, eyes, ears voice and everything. all he can do is lie their like a piece of meat. Who really would like to be like that? And who would be selfish enough to let somebody they love go through something like that?

but i think fully legalising euthaneisa may be a step too far. There are only some extreme circumstances like the above i think its warrented. Couldn't have every old person knocking themselves off because they fee guilty about 'burdening' their kids. Or Doctors saying 'its hopeless' just to try and free up beds in a crowded hospital.


PEACE!!!

[ABDUR101]

Obviously it would'nt be so easy to "off" oneself with euthanesia if done through the proper channels, and as with anything and everything it will be abused and used wrongly, and all the same it's just as easy to put a gun to ones head and end their "burden" upon family.

I'm talking about people who are truely suffering and their existance is torturous. No, lets just pump them full of morphine to dull the pain and numb them, but they still have to starve and die of whatever their ailment is.

Oh well, whatever!

[navci]

On 2005-03-22 12:04, ABDUR101 wrote:
Obviously it would'nt be so easy to "off" oneself with euthanesia if done through the proper channels, and as with anything and everything it will be abused and used wrongly, and all the same it's just as easy to put a gun to ones head and end their "burden" upon family.

I'm talking about people who are truely suffering and their existance is torturous. No, lets just pump them full of morphine to dull the pain and numb them, but they still have to starve and die of whatever their ailment is.

Oh well, whatever!



As with most posts Abdur writes. It has some really good points. http://pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_smile.gif

To me, life is only worth living when I am living it. Technically when I am depressed and locked myself in the room day after day after day, I don't even call that living. If I am in bed and my "soul" is pretty much not that, that's not living either. And I'd very much rather that I die, and free up spaces for people who need it, and not consume the resources that could go to other people.

Ya. Euthanasia is a sticky issue. But as Abdur said, everything, and everything can be abused. That is a lame excuse of not using to actually help people who need them.

[Dangerous55]

On 2005-03-22 00:45, anwserman wrote:


Thank you Bush.



http://pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif



I think Youth in Asia(I can't spell it) should be legal. It's also kinda like zombies you know, the body is alive but nothing is there. Yeah I'm a moron but it rang true for me.

[ViewtifulJoe]

Euthanasia...
I know some guy called Dr. Krevokian or something was euthanising old people. This is what should be legal, assissted suicide. He had old, but fully conscious patients who were in pain. They asked him to kill them, and he secretly did it. I think he has a twenty year sentence or something...

You're right, the victim is in pain, the victim wants to end it, the victim won't get better, why is keeping them alive doing the right thing? Just like so many issues, gay marriage one of them, people are putting faith in front of common sense and sympathy.

Please, PLEEEZE, if you know anyone who disaggrees or might disaggree (Someone evangelical, pro-Bush, conservative, pro-life) ask them to comment. As it is this thread has become pretty boring, as I started it for debate. Disagree with me!

[astuarlen]

Please, PLEEEZE, if you know anyone who disaggrees or might disaggree (Someone evangelical, pro-Bush, conservative, pro-life) ask them to comment. As it is this thread has become pretty boring, as I started it for debate. Disagree with me!

Unfortunately, this entire situation seems to have become simply another political cause or opportunity to have an argument for many people. Not that we shouldn't discuss the issues involved, but I hate to see this used as an excuse for conservative- or liberal-bashing. I must also admit that I am disturbed by the level of misinformation among some who are discussing this, both online and offline: as an example, Terri Shiavo is not brain-dead, but in a persistent vegetative state. Brain-dead people don't really need to worry about food or water, ya know. Anyway, that seems minor, but you have to wonder about judgments based on misinformation. Having said that...

Although I am dubious as to the husband's claims and intentions--it all seems a little shady--I tend to support euthanasia (FYI: the word euthanasia has nothing to do with youth; if I recall correctly, eu means something like "good" or "better", and thanasia refers to death). But removing Terri Shiavo's feeding tube is not the humane answer. Though some maintain that she is unable to feel the intense pain of starvation, we cannot be sure, and therefore we ought to err on the side of compassion. The only guaranteed way for her to "die peacefully"--or, more accurately, the only way we may kill her with minimal pain--is through a lethal injection of some sort. Let's own up to the fact that depriving someone whose body is otherwise capable of life-sustaining functions like breathing and circulation of food or water isn't just "letting nature take its course", as some have said; it is an action which will directly cause that person's death. And, yes, we are making a judgment here about the quality of life of someone whose mind we cannot exactly get inside. I don't know--and I don't think we can know without any definite proof--what Terri Shiavo really wants (or, at this point, it might be a matter of wanted, considering her current mental capacity). But I am fairly certain that I would not wish to exist in such a state, and I am convinced that simply starving her is not an acceptible solution. Thus, I conclude that the best thing we can do, given what we know, is quick and painless euthanization.

[Solstis]

On 2005-03-22 00:45, anwserman wrote:


Thank you Jeb Bush.



Out of the Bush lineage, I tend to like Jeb the most, but he seriously does not need to be poking his head in this issue.

It has nothing to do with ya, Jebby-boy, so stay out.

(Previously, Jeb pushed a measure or somesuch that delayed the tube removal)

[Eihwaz]

On 2005-03-22 20:47, astuarlen wrote:

Please, PLEEEZE, if you know anyone who disaggrees or might disaggree (Someone evangelical, pro-Bush, conservative, pro-life) ask them to comment. As it is this thread has become pretty boring, as I started it for debate. Disagree with me!

Unfortunately, this entire situation seems to have become simply another political cause or opportunity to have an argument for many people. Not that we shouldn't discuss the issues involved, but I hate to see this used as an excuse for conservative- or liberal-bashing. I must also admit that I am disturbed by the level of misinformation among some who are discussing this, both online and offline: as an example, Terri Shiavo is not brain-dead, but in a persistent vegetative state. Brain-dead people don't really need to worry about food or water, ya know. Anyway, that seems minor, but you have to wonder about judgments based on misinformation. Having said that...

Although I am dubious as to the husband's claims and intentions--it all seems a little shady--I tend to support euthanasia (FYI: the word euthanasia has nothing to do with youth; if I recall correctly, eu means something like "good" or "better", and thanasia refers to death). But removing Terri Shiavo's feeding tube is not the humane answer. Though some maintain that she is unable to feel the intense pain of starvation, we cannot be sure, and therefore we ought to err on the side of compassion. The only guaranteed way for her to "die peacefully"--or, more accurately, the only way we may kill her with minimal pain--is through a lethal injection of some sort. Let's own up to the fact that depriving someone whose body is otherwise capable of life-sustaining functions like breathing and circulation of food or water isn't just "letting nature take its course", as some have said; it is an action which will directly cause that person's death. And, yes, we are making a judgment here about the quality of life of someone whose mind we cannot exactly get inside. I don't know--and I don't think we can know without any definite proof--what Terri Shiavo really wants (or, at this point, it might be a matter of wanted, considering her current mental capacity). But I am fairly certain that I would not wish to exist in such a state, and I am convinced that simply starving her is not an acceptible solution. Thus, I conclude that the best thing we can do, given what we know, is quick and painless euthanization.


That's what I was thinking, too. I mean, starving to death is hardly humane. =/

[KodiaX987]

I find it really ironic (and 500% stupid) that a pro-choice person would be getting death threats from pro-life people.

Yeah, that's a below the belt jab, but it was too tempting to let go.

[ShadowsMinion]

I agree strongly on this one so I can't really disagree with you- Frankly I haven't seen many people who would keep her alive, but I know that 70% of couples are now considering this issue and that I think 7 out of 10 people would want to be put to death. I got these facts from listening to KFI 640, which is a decently fair radio station...

[ViewtifulJoe]

I wrote in my first post that her tubes should stay in until they come to a decision, whichever it is.

I pleaded for someone to disagree so I could see all sides completely, and because I created this topic for debate. I would never bash someone for disagreeing with me. I can't speak for everyone, but I respect all views.

Edit- Fuck, I made it look like something else. I would NEVER bash someone for disagreeing, that's what I meant.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ViewtifulJoe on 2005-03-23 15:20 ]</font>

[AYY-BEE-CEE]

Meh, I would have posted my opinion but most things said here rang true for my view too.

If I was in a position where I ended up braindead/terminally ill with plenty of pain to come, I would choose suicide or euthenasia.

[DB]

Dude. 15 Years. There is no hope left. Pull the plug, forget about it, go on with life. Simple as that.

Shit, if I was out for one year i'd have em' pull the plug. Screw it. The hereafter has to be better then this shithole. Well, depending on where your headed and if you even believe in that.

[Jehosaphaty]

On 2005-03-23 05:28, KodiaX987 wrote:
I find it really ironic (and 500% stupid) that a pro-choice person would be getting death threats from pro-life people.

Yeah, that's a below the belt jab, but it was too tempting to let go.


Pro-life is geared towards anti-abortion, the killing of the unborn baby. The issue isn't "murder" or "killing". She's brain dead. You can hardly consider that living. I'm sure Pro-lifer's only want to see her given a humane ending. I'm not condoling death threats, and they should keep their mouths shut. However, I fail to see that it is as ironic as you think.


*edit: As a side note, I find her husbands actions a bit appalling. "For richer or for pooer, In sickness and in health" to me means you are in it for the long haul. Living with another woman doesn't seem right. Personal opinion, take it or leave it, but if he doesn't divorce her he can cash in on her life insurance policy, so I smell shadyness.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Jehosaphaty on 2005-03-23 14:41 ]</font>

[ViewtifulJoe]

On 2005-03-23 14:39, Jehosaphaty wrote:


On 2005-03-23 05:28, KodiaX987 wrote:
I find it really ironic (and 500% stupid) that a pro-choice person would be getting death threats from pro-life people.

Yeah, that's a below the belt jab, but it was too tempting to let go.


Pro-life is geared towards anti-abortion, the killing of the unborn baby. The issue isn't "murder" or "killing". She's brain dead.* You can hardly consider that living. I'm sure Pro-lifer's only want to see her given a humane ending. I'm not condoling death threats, and they should keep their mouths shut. However, I fail to see that it is as ironic as you think.**


edit: As a side note, I find her husbands actions a bit appalling. "For richer or for pooer, In sickness and in health" to me means you are in it for the long haul. Living with another woman doesn't seem right. Personal opinion, take it or leave it, but if he doesn't divorce her he can cash in on her life insurance policy, so I smell shadyness.



I don't condone the husband either, and he's not only hurting her chances, he's hurting her memory. I know people that say that the husband, however, should let go and let her live because the parent want her to live so badly.
*Astuarlen is right. Brain dead means the brain is not working, thus a brain dead victim is dead. Vegetative state is what happens before her brain dies. It's deprived of blood long enough that it loses functions not necessary to live, but she's at the point where practically, the only function she has is respiration. She can move slightly and has minimal reaction.
**Pro-life mostly means against abortion. However, some people are, ironically, so against abotion that they destroy (explode) abotion clinics. These people, however, aren't pro-life, their terrorists. Pro-life refers more to abortion, but it can cover euthanasia, and again, the people sending death threats are radicals that make pro-life people look crazy.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ViewtifulJoe on 2005-03-23 15:39 ]</font>

[Ketchup345]

It probably is useless to keep her alive, but removing food and water does seem painful. Too bad it seems this is the only legal way she is allowed to go.



On 2005-03-22 10:14, ABDUR101 wrote:
Euthanesia should be legal. But no, dear lord, people who are being ravaged by cancers and living as mere shells in comas and unresponsive, no dear lord they have to die the good old fashioned way, starvation, sickness or oldage.(or a very painful death if it's cancer)

Yeah, real fucking humane right? We put down our animals with ailments that are too much for them to handle, but a human life is too much to merely let go with good graces and dignity.

While yes there have been people who have come out of comas and all that, after years, it's a pipe dream that may never come to fruitation, and personally, I would'nt want my body to rot around me in a bed with no dignity.

That, in and of itself, is inhumane. Ask any self-respecting person if they'd wish that fate for themselves, the answer will be a solid no.

Welcome to the world anyway.

I agree with most of what Abdur said.

Euthanesia should be legal, but of course there should be several steps before the process is carried out (for fully conscious people, and probably another process for cases like this one. Very good point about how we treat pets/animals different in situations like this.


What I can't understand is how people are saying that people who want the "plugs" pulled are trying to act like God. If not for these machines, she would have been dead long ago. Or is technology/science part of God part of the time, but not others?


If this is still remembered in the future, maybe there will be legal euthanesia (have to wait at least 2 years though it seems, probably more like 4 though until this becomes likely).

And everyone probably should make up their minds on what they would want to do in case of a similar event, and make sure it is written down and family and friends know and respect that wish. But apparently this isn't being followed in this case, unless I'm misreading something or not being told something.

For me, no more than 5 years (though this is changing occasionally) in a state where my brain is not functioning at normal levels (orvery close to it at least), and the ability to physically show my wish from there (such as the ability to see, hear, and write and/or talk).

[ViewtifulJoe]

On 2005-03-23 17:07, Ketchup345 wrote:
And everyone probably should make up their minds on what they would want to do in case of a similar event, and make sure it is written down and family and friends know and respect that wish. But apparently this isn't being followed in this case, unless I'm misreading something or not being told something.
Her wish was verbal, there was no writing.
That's why this is so strange. If she had it written that she didn't want to be kept on the tubes, by law, they cannot keep her on them. I think the family will be given time to say goodbye, and that they might have to be sure she couldn't recover.


What I can't understand is how people are saying that people who want the "plugs" pulled are trying to act like God. If not for these machines, she would have been dead long ago. Or is technology/science part of God part of the time, but not others?
That's a good point. Religion may or may not be a part of this, but if it is, it's hard to argue. Can you say someone's religious beliefs are wrong? However, if you point out a hypocracy, like in all other instances, something like putting in feeding tubes is playing god. She being kept unnaturally alive, yet when the unnatural life support is removed, they accuse people of tampering.

The reason why this is so big is because it's being used as political gain by so many. Anyone besides the husband, the family, the lawyers and the judges should leave this alone.

[Ketchup345]

On 2005-03-23 21:51, ViewtifulJoe wrote:
Her wish was verbal, there was no writing.
That's why this is so strange. If she had it written that she didn't want to be kept on the tubes, by law, they cannot keep her on them. I think the family will be given time to say goodbye, and that they might have to be sure she couldn't recover.
So I was missing something. I didn't know it was verbal only.




That's a good point. Religion may or may not be a part of this, but if it is, it's hard to argue. Can you say someone's religious beliefs are wrong? However, if you point out a hypocracy, like in all other instances, something like putting in feeding tubes is playing god. She being kept unnaturally alive, yet when the unnatural life support is removed, they accuse people of tampering.

I have heard a few people in the news, some in the opinion columns in local papers, and on some message boards that by pulling the tubes we'd be playing God.
Putting in the tubes was playing God just as much as pulling them out; it wouldn't have happened naturally.
I must be missing something with the reigous zealots in what is playing God and what isn't... http://pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_confused.gif

[anwserman]

I just thought of something though.
If I was injured, yet fully conscious and self-aware, and they wouldn't give me food or water to live but would take care of me otherwise... I would certainly try to get the stuff needed to survive - e.g., ask for food and water or motion somehow.

Yet, Terri has made no such actions.
She just sits there. No attempt at acquiring food or water for herself. Is she even aware whats going on?

Probably not.

[ViewtifulJoe]

On 2005-03-24 09:45, anwserman wrote:
I just thought of something though.
If I was injured, yet fully conscious and self-aware, and they wouldn't give me food or water to live but would take care of me otherwise... I would certainly try to get the stuff needed to survive - e.g., ask for food and water or motion somehow.

Yet, Terri has made no such actions.
She just sits there. No attempt at acquiring food or water for herself. Is she even aware whats going on?

Probably not.

We can't say she doen't want it, she has just lost enough brain function that she can't express it. Though they think she wouldn't want to live like this, a lot of the debate is whether or not she wants to die.

[Ice_ryu]

This situation has left me broken. I looked at my wife and son and said to myself where would I stand if I had to decide for one of them... I can't make a decision. I dont know which party is the one most suffering from this. I f I knew, I would side with them.

[ViewtifulJoe]

On 2005-03-24 11:57, Ice_ryu wrote:
This situation has left me broken. I looked at my wife and son and said to myself where would I stand if I had to decide for one of them... I can't make a decision. I dont know which party is the one most suffering from this. I f I knew, I would side with them.

It's possible Terry is that party. I would probably say to leave them in for a little while longer, except for the fact she been like this for 15 years.

[tank1]

im undecided but personally anyone who says let her die could you practice what you preach if you where in that situation?



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: tank1 on 2005-03-25 16:55 ]</font>