Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

As you there is a big fight over a woman who is in a persistant vegatateive state for 10 years and now there is a battle between her husband and her parents weither to remove her feeding tube (the only thing keeping her alive) or let her die as her husband said were her wishes.There is a little bit of R and a lttle of P to this topic.

Post your thoughts

_________________
RIP Nathan "Buz" Buzdor

I believe it's foolish to leave her alive. Let her die and reach a better life in the hands of God, instead of suffering a life in which all she does all day is sit in a bed and can barely control her motor functions. It's like she's not even alive anymore mentally, she's dead aside from her heart beating.

I think that if her wishes truly were to "pull the plug", as it were, her family should respect that. I know I wouldn't want to be kept living if I were in that situation. What I'm wondering is this: Why did her family wait so long? Ten years is a lot of time, and a lot of suffering for both Ms. Schiavo and her family.

_________________

I don't see any point of letting this woman live any longer; there's no hope of saving her and she's in the worst state you can imagine. It's not even a question of afterlife here, just the removal of pain from Earth.

My friend's grandfather had cancer that was discovered very late, too late. He spent his last day on life support and when there was no hope, my friend's parents let him go. Even though it hurt, they didn't want to keep him in agony.

_________________

171st POST ANNIVERSARY!!!

When my grandparents died a few years ago (long story - they died within a day or so - that's true love!) my mom signed a DNR for both of them, and I'm happy she did. Seeing them suffering and helpless in the hospital, essentially waiting to die was bad enough. Toward the end we just wanted that suffering to end, for them and for us. It was hard to see them go, but it really was harder to wait for it. They were both very ill, and hung on for a long time, but, ultimately, when Gramps found out that Nanny had let go, he felt he was ready too.
It really is a long story, and I don't want to clutter up this thread with a long post that may just be annoying, so if you really want to know the story, let me know.

_________________

If she wanted to pull the plug, how the heck could the parents make a legal arguement against that?

_________________

The problem, as I understand it, is that there is no legal support (DNR document or anything like that) to support the husband's claim.

Now, as I've pointed out numerous times on this board, I work with dementia patients at LSS. And one of the things I've learned from personal experience is that you cannot simply dismiss someone as a vegetable. I've sometimes visited residents who I thought were unresponsive, only to have them respond to me, residents who I thought couldn't speak who suddenly did. You cannot say for certain whether anyone who is unresponsive will be able to respond in any given circumstance.

As for a feeding tube, the feeding tube is not really like a machine or other forms of artificial life support. A feeding tube is for nutrition. A person who can survive on just a feeding tube is not really being artificially sustained because all the feeding tube is giving them is food. It would be different if it were dialysis or something like that, where the machine is the only thing keeping them alive.

This is not to say that the husband is wrong and the parents right. I cannot say for sure that this is the case. But I will say this: If you want to avoid being in that situation yourself, then get yourself legal documentation. Save everybody some hastles.

_________________

What if it's a kid? A poor kid is riding his bike on the side of the street and is hit by a Mac truck, he's a coma for 5 years and making no progress. The parents may want to pull the plug, what if...in his heart of hearts just wants to live any way possible even if it is living in a coma for the remander of his life.

_________________
RIP Nathan "Buz" Buzdor

When I was a kid, not too long ago, I probably wouldn't want to live just because I was breathing. To me, there's not much point to life if you're trapped inside your own body and can't communicate to anyone else. But that's not to say we should pull the plug on everybody who's in such a condition. If they want to live, let them live. If they don't then don't force them to. I think, however, that the default should be life. If someone's in a coma and you don't know whether or not they would want to live or die, just keep them alive. If the woman wrote anywhere that she wouldn't want to live in a coma, then she obviously shouldn't suffer. (I too think that living an unfeeling life would be suffering)

_________________

Now from what I here the Husband has been offered one-million dollars from some lawyer and then Mel Gibson has offered Ten-million to huave him sign her over to her parents and yet he refuses. What the crap? So far he's wasted more money trying to have her killed than he'll earn without signing her over to her parents. What the crap again? Also, he left her for some broad he met around Florida and he needs the money to support her. Now why earn a couple of thousand dollars killing his (ex?) wife off when he can keep her alive for twice...no...TEN times as much? Possibly more! He could earn eleven-million dollars leaving her alive and in the custody of his parents. From what I've heard, she has slowly been getting better (mentally speaking) for quite some time. Now I don't understand enough about Religion OR Politics to start a rant about it, but I do know a thing or two about the Human Mind. Normally I can see on both sides of a predicament, but frankly I don't see what the Husband is getting out of killing her when, once again, he could keep her alive for several times as much. Chew on that and provide me some answers. Then I'll be impressed.

_________________
The Incoherology Trilogy

Check out my tale, and I promise to start posting again.

Well, as strong as his alterior motives may seem, he might be genuinely concerned about his wife's welfare, enough that even the money offered to sign over the care to the family is not worth it for him. When I first heard about the case, I would have assumed that was his primary motive, too. But if it is true that he's been offered money to hand over the care to the parents, then I might need to reassess that assumption.

The human mind is an amazing thing. A damaged brain can actually program new channels to facilitate the person's recovery. There have been documented studies on this. I've seen it myself. I had one unresponsive resident who never responded to me until I started singing to her. Then, slowly, she started making stronger responses to me. She would smile when I sang, and then later even began speaking in simple words. I saw a definite progress in her condition just over the past few months. And she's in her 80's. Imagine if she were a woman in her 30's.

_________________

She's been like this for ten year, and has vitually no chance of recovering. I really don't like this, but I think that they should end her suffering and let her be embraced by the goodness of God. If that was me, and I was in a 'vegitative state' with practically no chance of recovery I would like to have the means that are keeping me alive removed as well. There's no use to continue my suffering and to keep the financial strain on my family.

_________________

In which case, I'd suggest you get that documented as soon as possible. Fill out the DNR orders and the Living Will ASAP, so you don't end up in the same situation.

_________________

Wow, Didymus, your posts in this topic have really touched me, especially your story about singing to a patient. That's a very noble line of work you're in.

Back to the topic at hand, though: If there is no documentation (DNR, etc.) then I agree that she should be kept alive. That ought to be the "default" decision, in my opinion, unless a patient has signed a DNR or given Power of Attorney to a family member.
What I don't understand is: What does Mel Gibson have to do with any of this?

_________________

I hadn't even heard that part about Mel Gibson. But if I were to guess, it is probably because he is a Roman Catholic and he wants to express his own pro-life views in this particular circumstance. However, this is only a guess. I hadn't even heard he was involved until Invader pointed it out.

_________________

A point I didn't see anyone touch on much this time is: what does Terri Schiavo really want herself? I thought that was the big debate, her husband who says she wouldn't want to live in this state, opposed to her parents who think she'd want to stay alive. So far it seems like her husband is up to no good intent, having two children with another woman already.

_________________
"No, no, no. You gotta get those rings... INSIDE the bottle!"
I'm just an old timer who lurks on occasion. Even in 2020, at least.

But that's the problem. The husband for now is the legal guardian, and according to him, she does want to die. Meanwhile, the parents claim she doesn't. Because she is not responsive (or at least not responsive enough to comment on this complex issue), no one can say for sure what she would want. Without a DNR, there's no way to really determine whether she wants to live or die.

_________________

People should treat her just as they would to a dying elderly person.

_________________

They're trying to. But believe it or not, elderly people have to go through pretty much the same legal crap when they get close to death, too. They also have to have their DNR orders and their Living Wills done in advance. At least they're somewhat prepared, seeing as how they usually expect to die sooner.

_________________

One of the morals of this story is to get a will really soon after you get married/move out of your folk's house, worst comes to worst if you gain a wife/husband and kids then all you have to do is change it a bit.

If she had this all figured out before she got in that accident then there would be such a frenzy about it now.

_________________
RIP Nathan "Buz" Buzdor

That's a very wise approach, Prof. TCG. No one could have foreseen something like this.

Being around this kind of stuff every day, I can see both sides of the issue. I can empathize with the husband: no one wants to see their loved one in a vegitative state, unable to respond. But at the same time, I've seen this happen plenty of times, where a spouse or loved one of a demented patient will continue to visit and care for their loved one, even though that person cannot recognize them or even respond. It's very heartbreaking, but you can't help but admire the diligence of their care.

_________________

There's only one loop hole, if you are a kid and you go into a coma like that (see my previous posts) you have no choice wether you live or die, it's all up to your parents bucause I think you can only draw up a will once you are a legal adult (18 in America)

_________________
RIP Nathan "Buz" Buzdor

I don't think that most children are wise enough to make these kinds of DNR decisions. Are you suggesting that the right thing to do would be to make a DNR for kids?

_________________

171st POST ANNIVERSARY!!!

This woman has been a vegtable for ten years, let her die. If i ended up in a vegatble state i would definately want to have my plug pulled as soon as possible.

_________________

And I think that's what it really comes down to, it they could read her mind and find if she really wants to die then all of this would be over.

_________________
RIP Nathan "Buz" Buzdor

The only thing that REALLY bothers me about this is the fact that congress is involved. I mean, I would have thought that this was an issue for the states. I don't see this turning out well for any of the legislative or judicial parties involved... I can see it now: If she dies, they're murderers. If she lives, they don't respect a dying woman's last wishes..

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

No one can prove that it was her last wish. But why would her husband lie?

_________________

But her brain has no fuctions other than the basic life functions, the involuntary movements (breathing, blinking etc.), she can't think she can't even feel, she doesn't know that the feeding tube is removed, she can't feel or sense that she is hungry, or thirsty. she won't feel the symptoms of starvation and dehydration. She can't feel pain.

_________________

I think it's cruel to keep her alive like that. She has completely lost her quality of life. In a law subject I took last year, in relation to accidents caused by negligence, compensatory payouts for diminshed quality of life are basicially useless if she has no use for the money.

But money is not the issue here. It's a sad life. If it was her wish to die rather than remain in that state, it should be honoured.
Then again, I also think it is cruel for her feeding tube to be disconnected so that she may starve to death, slowly and painfully over 2 weeks. It's inhumane! Though she may not be able to communicate that she is in pain, she will still feel it and suffer. I'm unclear about American law, but is death by lethal injection possible? A quick, painless death, and gives relatives the opportunity to say their last goodbyes and know that she will suffer no longer.

If lethal injection is illegal, then the person performing it may be guilty of murder. Then again, if the feeding tube remains disconnected and she slowly wastes away, will the disconnector of the tube be guilty of manslaughter (killing without intent)? In my opinion, it will still be murder (the intent is for her to die).

On the flipside, if she was apparently getting better. If by some miracle, she woke up in the morning and said "Hey, I'm alive", she would be permanently disabled. I mean, lying in a bed for 15 years is a good starting point for muscle and nerve deterioration. So if she did wake up, her qualtity of life would again be poor.

I guess there is no winning argument here.

_________________

But PizzaTrophy, "quality of life," while an important consideration, is not the only one. And from my experience working with dementia patients, you can never truly say, "she has completely lost her quality of life." If a patient seems unresponsive, you still cannot determine her awareness.

What's more, a feeding tube is not exactly what most people consider a drastic form of life support. In fact, I know quite a few of my residents on feeding tubes. All a feeding tube does is provide nutrition (i.e., food). She very well could continue living for weeks after the tube is removed. If her body were that degenerated, she would not be able to process the food, and it would do her no good.

_________________