| Homestar Runner Wiki Forum http://forum.hrwiki.org/ |
|
| Terri Schiavo http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2377 |
Page 2 of 4 |
| Author: | ModestlyHotGirl [ Tue Mar 22, 2005 1:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
According to an article I just read in the Globe & Mail (Toronto's largest [legitimate] newspaper), the tube was for nutrition and hydration. So, unless I'm misunderstanding, is she now living without food and water? The human body, especially when it's already under stress - loss of muscle tonality, possibly a lowered immune system - can only go so long without water. Without food - it's something like 2 weeks, I think. Without water, though, isn't it only 5 days or so? Now, I understand that this article may be wrong, but as the byline is from Washington, a lot of you may have read the same one. Am I mistaken in understanding that Ms. Schiavo is now slowly dying from lack of hydration? That doesn't seem right to me. And PizzaTrophy, lethal injection wouldn't work in this case, I don't think, from what I understand about American law. I'm pretty sure it'd be considered murder, considering that if there were consent involved, it'd be considered assisted suicide, which is illegal (a la Jack Kevorkian). I'm not really sure about the manslaughter thing, though. I don't think it would qualify as murder in any degree just to remove her means of nutrition/hydration. Kind of sad, no? So I'm a little bit "on-the-fence" here. I don't agree with the way she is being forced to live right now, ie. starving and dehydrating. I don't think she should be kept alive if she wants to die. But, since we don't know whether she really wants to live or die, I guess it's best to keep her alive. Maybe I'd feel differently if it were a true life-support system she were on. If her breathing, heart rate or kidney function were being artificially regulated, she would die within hours of "pulling the plug". But this way, she suffers (albeit unconsciously) for up to a week, or more, while her body wastes away. On somewhat of a side note, I think it's a little ironic that Bush cut short a vacation to deal with this and to lobby for her being kept alive. His stand on this, and on abortion - that life is precious - contradicts his merciless bombing of civilians in Iraq, in my opinion. |
|
| Author: | Shopiom [ Tue Mar 22, 2005 8:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I think they should just take the tube out. I mean, Terri can't even do anything. It can't be much of a life for her. She just lays there all day and does nothing. If I were in that condition, I'd definitely wanna die. |
|
| Author: | Stu [ Tue Mar 22, 2005 8:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Shopiom wrote: I think they should just take the tube out. I mean, Terri can't even do anything. It can't be much of a life for her. She just lays there all day and does nothing. If I were in that condition, I'd definitely wanna die.
Well... you got your wish. As of the last npr report I heard (roughly 3 hours ago), it was still out. To top it off, judges have decided they won't force it to be reinserted. I found it somewhat ridiculous that her parents wanted to call her as a witness so that the doctors couldn't touch the tube (or face witness tampering charges). I was glad to hear how quickly that was struck down. |
|
| Author: | Prof. Tor Coolguy [ Tue Mar 22, 2005 9:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
In their case, they are desperate to keep her ( no matter how ever much of an empty shell she is) so they'll try anything to get their way. legal loopholes sound like the last resort though. |
|
| Author: | Didymus [ Wed Mar 23, 2005 12:19 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Shopiom wrote: I think they should just take the tube out. I mean, Terri can't even do anything. It can't be much of a life for her. She just lays there all day and does nothing. If I were in that condition, I'd definitely wanna die.
That's your choice, Shopiom. I'd suggest you fill out a Do Not Resuscitate Order immediately. However, it is still debated whether it was HER choice. The husband claims yes, and the parents claim no. Personally, considering my own experience with dementia patients and hospice care, I'd say, "Better safe than sorry." If she's capable of surviving with only a feeding tube, and there's no concrete indication, such as a sworn statement or a DNR Order, then it is better to err on the side of life over that of death. As it stands, there is no concrete evidence that she wants to die, only the husband's unsubstantiated claim. And I will say it again: my own experience with dementia patients is that you cannot claim that they are merely empty shells. Even with the most unresponsive patients, you still cannot say with any certainty that they are completely unaware. (and if she were completely unaware, then you cannot claim that she is in any way suffering). I have seen unresponsive patients who unexpectedly started reacting to people. |
|
| Author: | Choc-o-Lardiac Arrest [ Wed Mar 23, 2005 3:56 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
listen u guys, shes a roman catholic, she cant let herself die, if she does, her bible says its a sin and she will go to hell. if theyer gonna let her die, they should hire an assas-WAIT.--- no good, let her live, |
|
| Author: | extremejon09 [ Wed Mar 23, 2005 5:57 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Im not sure what "vegatateive" means (looked it up on wikipedia and everyting) but I can guess its like a state of half life one might say. Well, If it was me in that situation, I would probbly want to die. I can't do anything but sit there, it would be Like torture. Me being the kind of person that feels like there loseing there mind if they sit still for more then a minute. Plus I would play no part in soceity, other then spark heated debates, so I would be useless and all I would do is drain the money of my loved ones and cause them emotional pain. |
|
| Author: | Choc-o-Lardiac Arrest [ Wed Mar 23, 2005 6:02 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
(OFF SUBJECT) hey, Modestly Hot girl, Wanna Help Me Through The Hard Times? (BACK ON SUBJECT) Vegitative means to be like a vegitable, ya know, can barley move, has minimal brain thought, and can barley produce speach. it usually happens when someone suffers a stroke. (BACK OFF SUBJECT) Can someone help me make a signature thing? Sorry if thats considered spam. uhh ohh, im starting to ramble on. bye everybodey. |
|
| Author: | sticklyman [ Wed Mar 23, 2005 8:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Gah...this is one of the reasons I don't like the Republican party. They're so intent on making sure that their pro-life beliefs are disseminated and instigated. Just let the woman die in peace! For a party that favors Christianity so much, they're being very immoral, trying to exploit a woman so that they can have their views even more in the national consciousness. She's not a fetus, so argue with reasonable arguments! Geez... |
|
| Author: | ramrod [ Thu Mar 24, 2005 12:38 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
The republicans are pretty much using Terri Schiavo to gain even more political power. They're trying to make the Dems look like heretics who want to kill the poor woman. They're trying to make it look like they're going to heal her themselves. Unfortunately, her problems could possibly be solved through Stem Cell research, but the Reps don't like that, so they're saying to keep her alive, but don't search for a cure. President Bush, you want to save her? Stop cutting funding to Stem Cell research! |
|
| Author: | Prof. Tor Coolguy [ Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Looks like the left is going to win this one, a person's right to choose is intact for a day more. Her story is getting more people in New York to get living wills so hopefully this won't happen again. |
|
| Author: | paxman356 [ Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Is it me or is the Schindler family getting more and more vitriolous (is that a word) as time goes by? They are now claiming Michael abused her and possibly put her in this state. There are 3 nurses (who's testimony was shot down) that are being paraded around by the media saying Michael refused treatment, or even tried to kill her again. Did you know Michael had a girlfriend after Terri died, and before his current one? And that he stalked her? Man, I didn't know the circus was in town. Good thing we all get good seats. http://abstractappeal.com/ The best coverage of this whole thing I have seen so far. |
|
| Author: | racerx_is_alive [ Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Here's what I understand to be the current line of decision making in regards to medical treatment, etc... 1) The person if they are capable of making the decision, or if they made their wishes known before losing that capability. 2) A person was appointed by that person through some verifiable legal means to make decision on their behalf. 3) The spouse. 4) The parents. 5) The children of the person (if they are old enough) 6) The siblings of the person. and so on so on. Maybe we won't like the decisions made by the highest person on that list, but I don't think that we should change the law just because somebody lower on the list feels strongly the other way. |
|
| Author: | Didymus [ Fri Mar 25, 2005 1:03 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Prof. Tor Coolguy wrote: Looks like the left is going to win this one, a person's right to choose is intact for a day more.
WHOSE right to choose? Terri left no advanced directive, and so I do not see how this situation is in any way a threat to "right to choose" as you claim. All we have are the husband's claim that his wife wants to die, contradicted by her parents, who claim she wants to live. Advanced directives like DNR order are widely accepted both legally and medically. Regardless of the outcome of this case, the person's right to choose will remain intact, so long as they exercise that choice by actually having advanced directives. BTW, advanced directives can help to avoid the turmoil and conflict of situations like this one. I'm all for them. |
|
| Author: | Ricksea [ Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Disagreements |
There's no question that DNRs are the best answer, but there's another issue here. The conservative approach to this type of case is that all people like Schiavo with no DNR or will should live. I disagree; cases should be looked at individually, especially if the victim in in depairdent pain. However, in this case, I've changed my mind. Taking away the political attention, family quarrels, and unclear choice matters, Terry Schiavo seems happy in clips I've seen of her with her husband. She seems at peace with the world. Despite the pain, I honestly believe she does not want to die. This case shouldn't be about ranks of decisions or religious intentions; it should be about letting a happy person live. |
|
| Author: | kerrek_slaya [ Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I'm glad they pulled the tube. No one should be forced to live like that. Unless there's a chance they could recover, they shouldn't be kept alive (unless they wanted to.) Something I don't get is the two guys who tried to sneak in and bring her a glass of water...that wouldn't have done anything anyway, she couldn't drink it, it would probably drown her...anyway, that's where I stand. She should be unhooked, so she can go to heaven after these long 15 years... |
|
| Author: | Stu [ Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
kerrek_slaya wrote: I'm glad they pulled the tube. No one should be forced to live like that. Unless there's a chance they could recover, they shouldn't be kept alive (unless they wanted to.) Something I don't get is the two guys who tried to sneak in and bring her a glass of water...that wouldn't have done anything anyway, she couldn't drink it, it would probably drown her...anyway, that's where I stand. She should be unhooked, so she can go to heaven after these long 15 years...
Your solution contains the very problem that they are currently facing. 1) Since she isn't dead, there is always a chance she could recover 2) We don't know what she wants. Her husband thinks it is to be let go, but her family disagrees So while your argument may make some sense, and sound reasonable, the very reasons you pose are the same used by people who feel completely the oposite as you. I don't understand why her husband won't give custody to her parents. It seems that if he did that he would be getting everything he asked for. That is unless he really does care about her (terri) any more. If he doesn't care then he is mainly letting her die so he can move on with his life. But if that was the case, wouldn't it make just as much sense to return her to her parents and move on? He would save himself all of the negative publicity this is generating (and will continue to generate). Since that isn't the case, I am under the impression that he really does believe that she wants to be let go. As some of you believe (including myself) once she is finally released from her body, she will be in a much happier place. Anyway, time for school... more to come later. |
|
| Author: | Ricksea [ Fri Mar 25, 2005 5:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Stu wrote: Anyway, time for school... more to come later.
You have school on Good Friday? I feel sorry for you. |
|
| Author: | Didymus [ Sat Mar 26, 2005 2:02 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
kerrek_slaya wrote: I'm glad they pulled the tube. No one should be forced to live like that. Unless there's a chance they could recover, they shouldn't be kept alive (unless they wanted to.)
So, if I understand you correctly, you're saying she should be FORCED TO DIE, regardless of her wishes? |
|
| Author: | So and So [ Sat Mar 26, 2005 3:15 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
If they can prove she truly wants to die, give her that right. No one should hold authority over a life that is higher than its beholder. If she is in utmost pain, give her that mitzvah. |
|
| Author: | Didymus [ Sat Mar 26, 2005 3:21 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
But they're not giving her any rights. They are in fact taking away her most fundamental right, the right to live. As Ricksea pointed out, all the pictures and portrayals of her are not of someone who is in pain, but someone who might, if cognizant, would probably prefer to live. |
|
| Author: | Prophet [ Sat Mar 26, 2005 3:56 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
-- |
|
| Author: | Jerome [ Sat Mar 26, 2005 4:50 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I think it's a disgusting way to end her life, at any rate. It's basically starving her to death. If they are going to let her die, do it QUICKLY and PAINLESSLY. |
|
| Author: | Mr. Sparkle [ Sat Mar 26, 2005 4:59 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Jerome wrote: If they are going to let her die, do it QUICKLY and PAINLESSLY.
Actually, there's a common misconception with the pain thing, it's basically painless and the only symptom is a dry-mouth and dry-lips. |
|
| Author: | Jerome [ Sat Mar 26, 2005 5:03 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Mr. Sparkle wrote: Jerome wrote: If they are going to let her die, do it QUICKLY and PAINLESSLY. Actually, there's a common misconception with the pain thing, it's basically painless and the only symptom is a dry-mouth and dry-lips. Well, quickly anyway. |
|
| Author: | Didymus [ Sat Mar 26, 2005 7:41 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Mr. Sparkle wrote: Actually, there's a common misconception with the pain thing, it's basically painless and the only symptom is a dry-mouth and dry-lips.
Actually, if you have attended any hospice care briefings (as I have, working in a nursing home and such), then you'd know that dehydration is important issue in providing patient comfort. Most hospice caregivers recommend giving the patient ice chips to alleviate dry mouth, and they also issue foam swabs that can be used to moisten the patient's mouth if they can't have ice chips. |
|
| Author: | ramrod [ Sat Mar 26, 2005 9:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
J-Mac wrote: While I agree the whole starving to death thing is bull, they should at least give her an overdose of morphine or something... That would be euthanasia, which with humans wouyld be murder. But with starvation when the body starts to break down the muscle fiber for food the body releases endorphines that null the pain. It's actually not that painfull.
|
|
| Author: | Ricksea [ Sat Mar 26, 2005 9:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Baby |
Did anyone see "Million Dollar Baby"? That was a good example of this case. For anyone who did not see the movie, ignore my following comment. Quote: In the end, when she finally died, Clint Eastwood killed her with some sort of fast-acting lethal injection. I don't see why this can't be used on the terminally ill.
|
|
| Author: | Didymus [ Sat Mar 26, 2005 10:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Because American courts have already determined that it is pretty much murder. Remember Star Trek 5 (I know, the corniest of the whole bunch, even cornier than the one with the whales)? McCoy administered a lethal injection to his father, only to discover not long afterward that they had found a cure for his father's illness. |
|
| Author: | Jerome [ Sun Mar 27, 2005 1:27 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Didymus wrote: Because American courts have already determined that it is pretty much murder. Remember Star Trek 5 (I know, the corniest of the whole bunch, even cornier than the one with the whales)? McCoy administered a lethal injection to his father, only to discover not long afterward that they had found a cure for his father's illness.
I like the one with the whales. It's my favourite of the ten. (But yeah, number 5 is bad) |
|
| Page 2 of 4 | All times are UTC |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|