Terry Schaivo

[KzinistZerg]

Ethical? Ignoring that idea... because ethics change with technology...

 

If nothing else... If you're dead we can't revive you but if you're alive, we have numerous ways to change your condition. Thus they should have left it in untill everything was said and done.

[Indoril Nerevar]

She died 15 years ago. Removing the feeding tube only made it official.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No she did not. She was still alive. however, she was a "vegetable" and certain rights change with your medical status.

 

 

And to ksintszerg " thus they should have left it until it was all said and done." what more could you want? She's in what i call unconsious consiousness (spelling error probable.). What is more humanitarianistic? Let a person die slowly and unaturally, or let them die naturally causing not damage to her consiously?

 

And another thing. I don't think it was ethical for her parents to be selling video tapes for $100 to all of these different media groups. Who really cares about Terry? Her husband.

 

Afterall, he's the one who decided to insert the feeding tube to keep her alive to see if it would blow over or could be cured. I think Terry was in good hands with her husband. That was ethical.

[Abramul]

At the time the tube was inserted, she was still able to take solid food.

[Peregrine]

No she did not. She was still alive. however, she was a "vegetable" and certain rights change with your medical status.

 

A person completely lacking in conscious brain activity, and unable to exist without life support is not alive. I don't know what insane definition of "alive" you use, but she definitely died a long time ago.

 

The thing that I didn't get is, if they were going to kill her, why didn't they just do it instantly and painlessly, hmm? It never seemed to factor into the debate that they wouldn't ever make even a dog experience death via starving. It seemed more than a little cruel and barbaric to me that they were letting her slowly die while blithering back and forth in the courts. Surely it would have been better to debate it in the courts, and then if/when they won, let her die in a less nasty way? They have painkillers and such, I suppose, but it still seemed uncalled for to me.

 

Because we have too many conservative idiots here who believe that the "right to life" is really the "duty to live at all costs," and refuse to allow any option for a painless death. Because allowing people to die willingly would offend their sense of morality, we're stuck with cases like this.

[Indoril Nerevar]

Peregrine tut tut tut

 

You simply said this "Because we have too many conservative idiots here who believe that the "right to life" is really the "duty to live at all costs," and refuse to allow any option for a painless death. Because allowing people to die willingly would offend their sense of morality, we're stuck with cases like this."

 

But how can she die if she is already dead? You're starting to go around in circles. I don't know what bizare definition of "alive" you use, but it isn't correct.

[Dark0ne]

Peregrine tut tut tut

 

You simply said this "Because we have too many conservative idiots here who believe that the "right to life" is really the "duty to live at all costs," and refuse to allow any option for a painless death. Because allowing people to die willingly would offend their sense of morality, we're stuck with cases like this."

 

But how can she die if she is already dead? You're starting to go around in circles. I don't know what bizare definition of "alive" you use, but it isn't correct.

 

Oh come on. Don't start trying to twist the meanings of words in a pathetic attempt to sustain the argument.

 

Peregrine meant she was clinically dead. You turn the life support off, she dies. Clinically dead.

[Zmid]

Because we have too many conservative idiots here who believe that the "right to life" is really the "duty to live at all costs," and refuse to allow any option for a painless death. Because allowing people to die willingly would offend their sense of morality, we're stuck with cases like this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I could be wrong, but I think it's actually that, in most cases like this, there is a chance, albeit a microscopic one, that, essentially, a minor miracle will happen and the person concerned will continue to survive without the feeding tube/ventilation/whatever other means of life support are used, and then actually recover enough to no longer be a 'vegetable'. Of course, the chances of this happening are extremely small, but I think this is standard operating practice just in case this million-to-one chance actually happens, and the patient will feel no pain anyway.

[Peregrine]

Peregrine tut tut tut

 

  You simply said this "Because we have too many conservative idiots here who believe that the "right to life" is really the "duty to live at all costs," and refuse to allow any option for a painless death. Because allowing people to die willingly would offend their sense of morality, we're stuck with cases like this."

 

But how can she die if she is already dead? You're starting to go around in circles. I don't know what bizare definition of "alive" you use, but it isn't correct.

 

You know perfectly well what I meant. She was dead already, but the conservative idiots demanded that her body be kept on life support to provide an illusion of life. They had to starve it to death because simply killing "her" would've been against that "duty to live". They couldn't allow the precedent that it is acceptable for people to choose to end their own lives, so we were stuck with this as the only option.

I could be wrong, but I think it's actually that, in most cases like this, there is a chance, albeit a microscopic one, that, essentially, a minor miracle will happen and the person concerned will continue to survive without the feeding tube/ventilation/whatever other means of life support are used, and then actually recover enough to no longer be a 'vegetable'. Of course, the chances of this happening are extremely small, but I think this is standard operating practice just in case this million-to-one chance actually happens, and the patient will feel no pain anyway.

 

The chances were pretty much zero for recovering anything even close to conscious thought again. It is far beyond the point where they need to be kept "alive" hoping for a miracle, when they have stated that they wish to be allowed to die.

[Dark0ne]

I could be wrong, but I think it's actually that, in most cases like this, there is a chance, albeit a microscopic one, that, essentially, a minor miracle will happen and the person concerned will continue to survive without the feeding tube/ventilation/whatever other means of life support are used, and then actually recover enough to no longer be a 'vegetable'. Of course, the chances of this happening are extremely small, but I think this is standard operating practice just in case this million-to-one chance actually happens, and the patient will feel no pain anyway.

 

It has happened in the past, but then it gets to the stage of asking how long a person should be kept on the life support machine. Indefinately? I think that's a bit harsh on the thousands of people on hospital bed waiting lists.

[Adras]

Agreed. I think it's about time people started carrying cards around in their wallets letting people know if they turn into a cabbage the life support can be turned off within X amount of days, similar to the "Give my body to science when I die" cards that are already around.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The local hospital in Traverse City is doing something sort of like that now called '7 Wishes' I think. Pretty much, when you become a vegatable, they look in the folder that YOU filled out and see what YOU wanted. Not what you discussed with your spouce, friends, or family.

 

But that's America for you. No offense intended to any Americans here, but sheesh. :rolleyes:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I take no offence. I dont even want to live here, its so screwed up. I would rather live in Canadia.