Terri Schiavo Dies
- Login to post comments
quote:Originally posted by Naran:
What happens if you have an elderly, disabled parent living with you, and you allow them to do this? Wouldn't there be legal repercussions, such as accusations of criminal neglect and abuse, for failing to either make them eat, or getting them medical attention when they started really failing?
Naran,
I believe there would at the very least be state intervention for what is defined as elder neglect:
Adult Abuse Neglect and Exploitation - DHHS-BEAS Maine"Neglect is a failure to provide care and services when an adult is unable to care for him or herself. Neglect may be at the hands of someone else or it may be self neglect. Neglect includes failure to provide:-adequate shelter, clothes or food
-personal care
-medical attention or necessary medication
-necessities such as glasses, dentures, hearing aides, walkers.Who May Receive These Services:-Any dependent or incapacitated adult who may be in danger of abuse, neglect or exploitation may receive assistance from Adult Protective Services.
A dependent adult is a person who is wholly or partially dependent upon other people for care and support, either emotional or physical, and who would be in danger if that care and support were withdrawn.
An incapacitated adult is a person who lacks sufficient understanding to make or communicate decisions about his or her own person or property.
These adults may need someone else to make some or all of their decisions for them.Clients of Adult Protective Services may include:
-frail or vulnerable elders
-people with mental illness
-those with alcohol or drug abuse problems
-those with medical problems or disabilities"Anyone can and should report suspected Elder Abuse, Neglect and/or Exploitation (see list on website of who should report).Emergency InterventionNaran, I can tell you from my own experiences caring for elderly parents...medical professionals are always on the look-out (and rightfully so!) for elder abuse/neglect by caregivers or guardians. And they are also attuned to the patients self-neglect.George wrote:
quote: I have heard several doctors says that it is not unusual for people to stop and eating and drinking at certain stages of certain illnesses even though they can still eat and drink.
It is not unusual (as in the case of Alzheimer's and related dementias and a myriad of other diseases) however does this mean the person should be allowed to starve/dehydrate themselves?Naran's scenario mentions an elderly, disabled adult. If that adult had Alzheimer's and I was caring for that adult at home, allowing such a thing to occur, you better believe I'd find myself standing in front of a judge with lots of explaining to do!Now, if your family member is in a nursing home (and private pay or not) they may indeed get away with starving and dehydrating the elder. And the courts turn their heads on this more often than not - sad to say.
LMD - that's kind of what I'm thinking too... that well-intentioned agreements between adults aside, I can easily see having to answer some hard questions before a DA if I allowed my disabled mother to off herself by not eating and drinking for two solid weeks. It takes two weeks if the person is otherwise healthy, I think we all know that at this point.I don't think I'd want to put it to a test.
You know, I bet you (Lucille) and LMD call yourselves Christians and you probably go to church on a fairly regular basis.I think it would be wicked interesting to share your most recent posts to me with your pastor and congregation some Sunday morning. It would make Jesus proud. :roll:
quote:Originally posted by Shep:
You know, I bet you (Lucille) and LMD call yourselves Christians and you probably go to church on a fairly regular basis.
I don't go to church on a fairly regular basis. Is that what you wanted to hear?
quote:I think it would be wicked interesting to share your most recent posts to me with your pastor and congregation some Sunday morning.
Only a pretentious punk like you would connect the above-parsed imbecillity, with "thinking."As for your intention to rat on me to priest and parishioners, be my guest. My religion takes a very dim view on those who go around casting stones. So I'm afraid YOU'd be the one who'd end with egg on his face. Nice try.
quote:[b]It would make Jesus proud. :o Let it go, punk. It's just as laughable as your attempt at "honesty" and "compassion." Not to mention "balance and decency." :D :p[ 04-02-2005: Message edited by: Lucille ]
Personally, I think you all need a couple hours in the corner. Quit fussing at each other, and take a break. All this hair-pulling is boring as hell.And now you can all yell at me for a change.
:roll:
quote:Originally posted by Naran:
Personally, I think you all need a couple hours in the corner. Quit fussing at each other, and take a break.
Awww. But I'm having such fun. And Shep is to easy to tweak. :D
quote:All this hair-pulling is boring as hell.
Well, you don't have to read it, do you, dear. ;)
quote:And now you can all yell at me for a change.
:roll:
Why? I like you, Naran. Besides, you've given me no reason to yell at you. You're not Shep.
George please answer the question I have asked repeatedly. Where do you draw the line? If personal automony should be the only consideration, do you favor assisted sucide? Do you favor euthanasia? Get it out on the table George. Should we poll the mental hospitals and see who wants to die and help them? Answer honestly. How about the Levison Center in Bangor. I'm sure that those poor chilidren don't want to live that way. How about ALS patients. We know they are going to die within 1-3 years. Why pay for all that care when the outcome is inevitable? I'm sure we can find some mentally ill and homeless people who have stated years ago they would rather be dead than live that way. Do we round them up and let personal automomy take it's natural course. Oh, and I forgot about the severely autistic, locked in a brain that doesn't function normally. Come on George be honest, with personal automomy and substituted judgement we could get rid of a lot of useless eaters. Hey maybe we can finally balance a budget. Where do you draw the line? Honestly answer the question. I'm off to Mass this morning to pay my respects to the Pope. I'm sure he won't mind if I use my personal autonomy and say a prayer for Shep, George, and Randy. Peace be with you.Al
It is clear that the "spoken" public opinion weighs in heavily on the side of the Shindler family. What is not so clear is whether or not that is truly representative of what the sentiments of the public really are. In the face of the emotional outburst that has risen in support of the Shindler family it is difficult for those who support the decision, or at least would like to see a reasoned argument of same, to speak out with an opposing point of view. But I will try.I want to preface my statements by saying that I fully accept that each of us has the right to his or her own opinion of this case. We each have the right to speak out about our opinion. I respectfully tend to disagree with the opinon that favored The Shindler family point of view. I enjoy liberty, and would put on a uniform and pick up a weapon and lay my life on the line to defend the right of each and everyone of us to formulate and defend our ideas, even though I may disagree with them. The right to utter them, and defend them, is a greater right!A&E television aired a show last night at 10:00pm on this case. It was an interesting and informative show. I felt that it was done, as much as humanly possible, without bias and much time was given to those on opposite sides of the argument to make their case. It also contained the opinions of several medical professionals whose thoughts were solicited by the producers as well as the opinion of a nuerologist who testified on behalf of the Shindlers. My mother suffered a catastrophic stroke in the spring of 1993. She was admitted to our local hospital and stabilized. She was taken 2 days later to a large regional hospital for a CT scan to determine the extent of the injury. Her doctors told my dad, and my wife and I, that the damage was "extensive" and that there was "no hope of any kind of meaningful recovery". The doctors asked my dad if the two of them had ever discussed what they would want if in this position. My dad stated "yes they had" and that my mother had always said that if she could not have anything like the kind of life she had lived she would rather be dead. They asked my wife and I how we felt and we were in total agreement. Today, 12 years later, we all feel comfortable that we made the decision that was right for our situation. The question was so clear, and our knowledge of my mothers wishes, were so concious in our minds that the decision virtually "made itself". It was, and is, one of those decisions that you dislike to have to make yet you know in your heart you are carrying out what the patient would have wished for. We ruled out any form of life support, indcluding feeding tubes, and allowed my mother to pass peacefully away a few days later.The words "murderer", "killer", and "culture of death" have been tossed around here rather loosely of late. I am quite distressed with the idea that some would possibly view me, and my family, as murderers! What is it that you feel gives you the right to formulate this kind of opinion of others and state it publicly? It was cleary not your decision to make.It is important to note that I do NOT support state-sanctioned euthanasia! That would be a recipe for abuse no doubt. There are things that the government must stay out of in my opinion and this is one of them. I have often thought of myself as "conservative" but I have finally realized I am not that at all. My adult son and I worked together last week and discussed this case often. He concluded that he is a "realist". I guess that if you combined "realist" with "liberterian" than perhaps that is a fair assessment of myself! The ability to accept reality is a difficult thing for many. Many people around the world have difficulty with the "letting go" process. My dad instilled in me the idea that one must be able to realize when it is time to give up.My mother was a cancer patient for the last 3 years of her life. She battled lymphoma during that time. She endured 6 chemo treatments that destroyed her hair, impaired bodily functions and left her violently ill for days after each treatment. It took great courage on her part to walk into the onclolgy ward and have the poison administered again and again. A few days after her death her doctor told me that she had been "lucky" in his opinion. The end game for lymphoma is utterly devestating as anyone who has worked in a nursing home, as my wife has, can readily testify to. There is great pain and your body slowy falls to pieces literally. My mother's doctor stated: "She was spared a horrifying end. Instead she went peacefully, similar to falling asleep." That statement has comforted me over the years and confirmed the right decision was made indeed in our particular case.In order to determine what each of us might want in this situation we must mentally put ourselves in that spot. Would we want to live out the remainder of our lives in a "vegetative state?" Would we want to end our lives with alzheimers like my wife's mother currently is, with no understanding of who we are or where we are? Would you choose that for yourself? That is something that we all need to think about before we impose our ideas upon others!I believe that these cases must be decided on an individual basis and that government cannot, and should not, assign a blanket remedy to cover all occurrences. I believe these cases should be decided privately between patient, when possible, family and medical professionals. What may be right for one may not necessarily be right for any one else.When there is not agreement amongst family members the only alternative is to ask the courts to determine the answer. The Shindlers argued their case numerous times, raising new issues each time. They ultimately lost the legal battle. America is based upon an idea, or rather a whole series of ideas, amongst them the idea of free debate. The judicial system operates mostly on a basis of precedent. In other words what happened yesterday and today will ultimately weigh in upon what happens tomorrow. Law libraries are full of the records of numerous cases that have been tried before. Precedents are found for the case at hand and arguments raised before are utilized again. The US Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of all of this, weighing in when it is felt that a lower court may have erred. The fact that the US Supreme court refused to hear the case is very telling. It states pretty much that the Shindlers did not raise enough convincing legal arguments to warrant another look at the case. I watched the show on A&E last night very carefully as I wanted to see what the legal arguments were on both sides. At no time did I hear the Shindlers, or any family members, or their attorney raise any (none!) legal arguments to show the state courts were wrong. Instead the Shindlers, recognizing that they had lost the "legal battle" made a conscious decision to take their argument to the media and thus try the case in the "court of public opinion", as has happend often before.The show aired a lot of footage of Terri in her bed. It appeared at times that she reacted to outside stimulation. Yet Michael,s attorney pointed out that many hours of footage were taken and very carefully edited to a few bits and pieces that would tend to sustain the arguments of the parents. But in order to get a true picture you would need to see all of the footage, particularly that when Terri showed no reaction at all. What was done was really little different from making a "movie".The thing I found astounding was how much Terri acted like my mother did afer her stroke. It was eerily similar. My mother breathed, her heart functioned, her eyes were open, and she sometimes seemed responsive but most of the time not. The CT scans of Terri's brain were shown. I am not an MD but have viewed a number of human head scans over the years. You do not need to be an MD to see the large black hole existent as most of her brain, except that deepest rooted part that controls heart and breathing functions had been irretrievably lost. Brain cells do not regenerate. Once lost, it is lost forever. Her scan looked much like my mothers did in fact. The cases of several people who had recovered from "comas" were brought up. But that is a completely different thing. It is like apples and oranges.From the beginning Michael was very supportive of Terri and had hopes for some recovery. This must have lead to the installation of the feeding tube in the beginning. Michael put himself through nursing school and became an emergency room nurse, primarily so he could better care for his wife. He took Terri to the west coast and had an electronic device implanted in her brain that might hopefully stimulate brain activity. The Shindlers ultimately were to offer Michael all the insurance money, and his freedom, if he would just walk away and leave Terri alone. But he adamantly refused. Are these the actions of someone just interested in himself?I think Michael reached a point that many of us would reach in his shoes where he "gave up" as he realized there was no hope of "any meaningful recovery". The only medical professional on the show who felt she might recover somewhat was a professional who was paid to give his testimony in behalf of the Shindlers. Not exactly unbiased. Though sincere not doubt, his opinion was bought and paid for because it supported the desired point of view. All other medical professionals on the show concluded that Terri would never recover to any significant degree. And that the longer it went on the even less chance of that happening. The medical opinon was overwhelming in this respect!I will put forth a hypothesis and I freely admit it to be only a guess. Yet it could explain much about this case.Terri suffered from the emotional and physical effects of an "eating disorder". My wife grew up in a dysfunctional household and learned early on that the one thing a child CAN control is what nutrition they take in, and keep in. Eating disorders can often mirror problems related to the issue of parent/child control. Many parents cannot give up control of their children, even as the children become married adults, and even parents themselves. I think in this case this is certainly a possible explanation for both the eating disorder and the unwillingness to let go despite facing overwhelming odds.The eating disorder produced constant vomiting. Constant vomiting produces a low level of potassium in the body. This led directly to Terri suffering cardiac arest for about 10 minutes. During this time great brain damage was done due to loss of oxygen. This placed her in a state where it was pretty clear to me that there was little hope for any kind of significant recovery. I believe it also possible that during the marriage of Michael and Terri, these issues of "parental control" may have become a factor. This would explain the obvious acrimony between the parties for sure. The motivations of the parents were never a question to the media. But what if? What if the parents were those kind of people who cannot let go? What if they were the kind of people who thought that their daughter, even in adulthood, could never have made any decisions for herself and that mom and dad were the only ones who knew the 'right answers" to everything. I have seen this often myself. Even the Shindler's attorney said; "Terri was a young person and young people can't think well for themselves on this kind of an issue". But the law certainly recognizes the legal ramifications of adulthood at age 18 or so in most places. The law clearly states that in the absence of a living will it will turn to the spouse for the information leading to carrying out the best wishes of the patient. This works with logic as the spouse certainly was the most recent, and last person to have engaged in this kind of discussion with the patient. The court clearly stated that this opinion was more important than that of the parents. The court upheld this position mumerous times. The US Supreme court could not disagree evidently.The Florida legislature was called into session late one day. They were give no warning or any prior information.They were simply told that they had to vote on a very important issue. Many of them said they were frightened, confused, afraid etc to rule in on the issue. Ultimately they passed a bill which gave the Florida governor the right to overturn the court decision. Under our system there are three parts to our government, Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. This was established this way as a system of "checks and balances". No one branch could overule another. But that is what happened here. It is no surprise at all that the Florida State Supreme Court threw this new law out. It clearly demonstrated, at least to me, that the politicians were out of bounds on this matter.The real tragedy of this case is that it was tried in the "court of public opinion" and turned into a 3 ring circus. Emotions took over from logic and reason, as was intended when this particular battle was engaged. The fact that the only case the Shindler's had was truly a case of emotions and not legalities was very evident.What shall we do? Should we have federal "spouse police" who will rule whether or not the person in question is a "good spouse" before we accept their word? Should the government decide these cases on an individual basis? Should there be a blanket edict that any and all measures shall be used to maintain life even in the face of opposition by the patient himself? Or should we opt for allowing patient, doctors and family to make this difficult decision on a case by case basis to fit the particulars of that incident?I would opt for the latter as the spectre of woderful folks like Teddy Kennedy, Tom Delay and others weighing in with their opinons if I should end up in Terri's shoes is a little too much to imagine!I am certain that I am in the minority but I believe the only way to any resolution is open and honest debate of ideas. I do not feel that either side of this issue should resort to defamation and personal attacks on those with whom they disagree. AT the top of this forum page it states in part: "Thank you for avoiding personal attacks".Well said!
What an informative, mature and insightfull post woodcanoe! For me, I am comfortable that the correct avenues were persued in the begining, when the state court heard all the evidence on BOTH sides and ruled accordingly. Al: Thanks for saying a prayer for me...I'm sure She's listening. I'll do the same for you. And I'm very sorry for your loss. I don't know much about Popes, but he seemed like a very sweet and gentle person.Lucille: I didn't intend to imply that I would read your posts to your congregation or pastor (priest). But perhaps your response that "they don't throw stones" should be exampled by us all. No?
Woodcanoe wrote:
quote:It is important to note that I do NOT support state-sanctioned euthanasia!
You just did!Al
quote:Originally posted by Al Greenlaw:
George please answer the question I have asked repeatedly. Where do you draw the line? If personal automony should be the only consideration, do you favor assisted sucide? Do you favor euthanasia? Get it out on the table George.
Not giving treatment or food is different than taking an affirmative act which causes death, IMHO.The reality is that those on feeding tubes would have died of a lack of food for all of human history until the last two or three decades.
quote:Originally posted by Al Greenlaw:
I'm off to Mass this morning to pay my respects to the Pope. I'm sure he won't mind if I use my personal autonomy and say a prayer for Shep, George, and Randy. Peace be with you.Al
Interesting to note that the Pope decided not to go back to the hospital and died in his apartment without getting extraordinary care. Would he still be alive today if he had made a different decision? Should someone have forced him to go to the hospital?
quote:Originally posted by George:
Interesting to note that the Pope decided not to go back to the hospital and died in his apartment without getting extraordinary care. Would he still be alive today if he had made a different decision? Should someone have forced him to go to the hospital?
He did receive food and water by tube. He did not consider food and water to be "extraordianry" care.Al
quote:Originally posted by Al Greenlaw:
He did receive food and water by tube. He did not consider food and water to be "extraordianry" care.
He didn't, others do. Why should the government make that decision for everyone?
George wrote:
quote:Not giving treatment or food is different than taking an affirmative act which causes death, IMHO.
That's a real hair split. I'm sure that makes you feel better. You are still avoiding my question. If we are to go solely on personal autonomy (choice) when do we legalize assisted sucide? When do we "help" ALS patients end it all? What will be the standard to determine "choice"? Tough questions I admit, but you were the one who mentioned choice. Where does it end? Surely you must have some standard, please share. Al
George wrote:
quote: The reality is that those on feeding tubes would have died of a lack of food for all of human history until the last two or three decades.
False.THE REALITY behind "feeding tubes:
~NG tubes (tube down nose into stomach) have been used to feed disable people for centuries!
~A physician in 1790 was the first to suggest that a tube placed directly through the abdominal wall into the stomach might replace the NG tube.
~The first gastrostomy was done around 1837; the first successful gastrostomy in 1877 (G-tube).
~The PEG was invented in 1980 - Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy
quote: Interesting to note that the Pope decided not to go back to the hospital and died in his apartment without getting extraordinary care. Would he still be alive today if he had made a different decision? Should someone have forced him to go to the hospital?
From an earlier article prior to the Pope's death:
...there was nothing being done for John Paul at the hospital that couldn't be handled at the VaticanLooking forward to your answers to Al's questions.
quote:Originally posted by Al Greenlaw:
You are still avoiding my question. If we are to go solely on personal autonomy (choice) when do we legalize assisted sucide? When do we "help" ALS patients end it all? What will be the standard to determine "choice"?
I answered above. A person has the right to refuse medical treatment, drugs, food, and water. They do not have the right to have someone take action on their behalf to cause their death. The former results in death due to the lack of action. The later results in death due to someone's action. It is a pretty easy standard and is the one followed by doctors every day.
quote:Originally posted by LMD:
From an earlier article prior to the Pope's death:
...there was nothing being done for John Paul at the hospital that couldn't be handled at the Vatican
The first line of the story says:"Doctors have advised Pope John Paul II to extend his hospital stay a few more days, but he will return to the Vatican by the start of Holy Week on March 20, the pontiff’s spokesman said Thursday." So the Pope ignored medical advice and went home. I guess he valued his personal autonomy and decided not to turn all his decisions over to doctors.
- « First
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Login to post comments
Well, well, well. Listen to the pot calling the kettle black. So we, "religious death-fanatics" try to shove blah, blah, blah down the throats of "decent and spiritually balanced folk", eh? And I'm sure you include yourself in the latter group, don't you, Mr. Effing Decency? Of course! And yet you question my honesty?
I don't need to feel safe in the world, punk. I can take the world as it is: unsafe, unfair, etc. It's YOU bloody liberals who are forever soiling your underwear at the thought of danger of any kind. That's why you want a government that will "protect" your yellow-bellied selves by taking away the freedom and rights of all those who have the courage to make the best of life, in spite of its faults.
Not sick enough, since you're still bleating, and will probably continue to do so, more's the pity.As for my being unChristlike, I'll let God judge me for that, not you. Typical. Heaven forbid that you may call a member of the democrat's protected species by any insulting name. But a punk like you can call me dishonest, religious nut, etc. Being judgemental is all very well when you're the one doing it, isn't it, you bloody Pharisee?And I'll tell you something else for nothing. I'll continue to call you by any name I choose, inflamatory or not. I only abstain from doing that if I respect someone. And for liberals/communists/death merchants, whichever group you belong to, I HAVE NOTHING BUT UTMOST, UNDILUTED, EVER-LASTING CONTEMPT. Do you understand me, you bloody hypocrite?
Obviously, you're using the ABC poll, proven bogus by just about everybody. Well, I've got news for YOU, Shep. Since Terri died, two polls asking honest questions that applied to her actual situation, came back with over 78% of Americans condemning the murder of invalids who are unable to plead for their lives. But you would support such murder, wouldn't you, Mr. "Compassion"?
I'm so glad you finally got that, Sparky. Try to remember it the next time you and your ilk vote for those who make laws that take away the rights of people who smoke, drive SUVs, carry guns, etc. And no, don't give me any crap about them being a menace to society, or your effing environment. YOU and your ilk are the only menace to a free society.
Schiavo. That's S-C-H-I-A-V-O, punk. Can't you even spell the name of the woman whose rights you purport to defend, properly? Why are you liberals always so bloody illiterate?And we only have her adulterous husband's word for what she "wished". But I'm not surprised you believe the lies of an adulterer. You voted for one, too, didn't you. And I'm sure you believed all his lies, as well.
Such courage. :D Bring it on, punk. Nothing will amuse me more.
You can take your civility and shove it where the proverbial sun don't shine. I have no use for it. And I don't give a liberal in hell about your preferences. The only thing you'll ever get from me is contempt, disrespect, sarcasm, ridicule, etc. That's the only kind of treatment punks like you get from me. PERIOD!Did I make myself clear, dear? Good. Now bugger off and leave grown ups alone. Go play political correctness with your "compassionate" pals, who, like you, favor the murder of innocent defenseless people.[ 04-02-2005: Message edited by: Lucille ]