It Has Begun

[impressive]

Stay the fuck out of it until you've been there.

I'm in it, and I've been there.

(EDITED: TMI)

But, this is not about my experiences -- or yours. This is about killing someone based on hearsay and in a way that is inhumane.

 

[Op_Cit]

The interesting thing about all this is that %80+ of people would not want to be kept alive in her condition (according to recent polls). The majority of difference in opinion seem to be those who look upon her in the context of parent and those who look upon her in the context of themselves in that position.

As I recall, the statements I have heard are the husband saying "she wouldn't (or didn't) want to continue this way." I have not heard the parents saying that's not the case, just "you/we don't know that" or "she didn't tell us that". (I may be wrong on that but it's my perception.) This is interesting.

Anyway, for me I can think of no greater hell than actually being aware in that state and being taken care of by my mother. (She's insane.)

 

[Colleen Thomas]

One other example and I will let it rest.

Some physicians, such as Dr. Peter Morin and Dr. Thomas Zabiega, both neurologists, say that no such diagnosis can reliably be made without more a sophisticated test such as an MRI or PET scan.[

Did you bother to examine the credentials of either ot these men? They are not your garden variety doctors. Dr. Zabiega, is a staunch Roman Catholic, and as such, could be expected to oppose anything that allows someone to die, in fact, he does on moral grounds, medical neccessity being an after thought.

Dr. Morin, is a stong pro life voice, again, someone who could be expected to oppose anything that brings death on moral grounds, medical neccessity notwithstanding.

In neither case, can you assume they are acting with ulterior motive when they say she isn't in a vegetative state. But in neither case, can you argue very convincingly that they aren't doing just that. It is interesting, that of these "multiple experts" they claim to have, the only two they list are, to the skeptic, far from reliable and unbaised sources.

I don't intend, to belabor the point, but I do wish to give a couple of illustrations. The site is partisan. Strongly partisan. IMHO, intentionally, deceptively, partisan.

When you rip stuff from a site that is so partisan, you have a responsibility to at least try to ascertain the validity of their statements. That responsibility isn't to me, I'm a natural skeptic and will check things out. It isn't to sher, or doc or the others you are argueing with. It isn't even to lit at large, the people who read, but don't post. The responsibility is to yourself. When you post this stuff, if it's full of factual inaccuracies, intentional decptiveness or outright lies, you shoulder the blame for it. You appear, at best, gullbily naive; at worst, a willing part of the deceptive practices.

I've been guilty of this myself. I've been called down by Pure, among several, and it's dreadfully embarassing when you find you have been spreading what amounts to propaganda.

Nothing I am saying, invalidates any of the points you wish to make about this case. What I am saying, is the supporting proofs you are providing, via this website, are not compelling, nor even convincing proofs to the critical thinker. The level of duplicity in the site's articles, in fact, tend to lead one to believe the authors have no real case and are clutching at straws, building a house of cards and hoping for governmental intervention based on thier moral conviction that letting someone die is wrong and not on any medical information.

I'll let it lie now and hope you don't take offense, as none is intended.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Colly, surely you're not suggesting that there's false and biased information on the internet!

And I just ordered all those penis-enhancing drugs!

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colly, surely you're not suggesting that there's false and biased information on the internet!

And I just ordered all those penis-enhancing drugs!

Ordered them? I get offered free samples almost daily in my email!

 

[Boota]

I recently just participated in making this decision for my grandfather. I'll be a pallbearer in his funeral later today. While I'm sure that every situation is different, I am absolutely positive that this was the right thing to do. Quality of life is EVERYTHING. Existence is all a feeding tube offers once you are to the point of "needy furniture". I've never heard anyone say, "No matter what you must keep me alive, even if I become a drooling, empty, withered shell of myself." I believe this woman's husband when he says that she expressed her wishes to him. I think the tragedy is that they've made her suffer through this all this time.

My biggest problem when my grandfather died Thursday morning was that he struggled for breath for several hours as his lungs filled with fluid. He wasn't technically conscious, but he did respond to stimulus, and he was drowning. I thought they should have been able to give him something to help him relax and to make him go easier, but I was told that it wasn't allowed. Then at four a.m. they said that they were approved to give him morphine to help him along, knowing that it would speed his death. Why was it okay at four a.m. and not at, say 8 p.m. the night before, when he was in the worst of the fight to breathe? They never had to give him the shot because he started to go on his own as the nurse came in to administer it, but he suffered needlessly for several hours when a shot could have prevented all of that.

I understand that being euthanized directly is a different argument than simply removing a feeding tube, but I think euthanasia is the answer that we're not allowed to give. They treat dying animals with more dignity than humans sometimes.

 

[ABSTRUSE]

I've been following this sad story and after dealing with sick parents and all the legal crap...the best thing anyone can do is to make a living will. Then your wishes can be met without the burden being placed on a loved one and a mess like this can be avoided.

 

[Boota]

Sometimes a living will is even contested by family members. I can think of nothing more selfish, but it does happen.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I think part of the difficulty in living wills, though, is the difficulty of nailing down a precise diagnosis. Impressive mentions one case; I also worked with a woman who was in a terrible car accident and lost some brain functions. Her parents wanted to put her in a long-term care facility; her partner wanted to pursue a more aggressive program of therapy aimed at trying restore her functions. I'm sure that both sides had thought this through carefully and felt that there were elements of the diagnosis that supported their ideas. In the end, I saw her back at work three years later - but not herself. She had trouble concentrating and focusing. In the end she took a medical settlement - but she was living a great deal more independently than she could have under her parents' plan.

I think families contest living wills, at times, not because they don't respect the loved one's wishes, but because they are convinced - perhaps by facts, perhaps by hope - that the circumstances are not what the loved one had in mind. The center of the case with Schiavo seems to be the question of whether she's really in a persistant vegetative state or not. While understanding Colly's point about bias in websties, I would argue that there is some give and take here - it's not unthinkable that those doctors she mentions are right, and that their philosophical stance is derived from honest observation. It's difficult to convince people that someone laughing and smiling isn't responding; it's hard to be black and white and absolutely sure. In fact, it's not possible. Doctors are wrong. And desperate people cling to hope.

Not saying that they are always right - just that they aren't necessarily malicious either. They may really believe that she can improve.

Shanglan

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I think part of the difficulty in living wills, though, is the difficulty of nailing down a precise diagnosis. Impressive mentions one case; I also worked with a woman who was in a terrible car accident and lost some brain functions. Her parents wanted to put her in a long-term care facility; her partner wanted to pursue a more aggressive program of therapy aimed at trying restore her functions. I'm sure that both sides had thought this through carefully and felt that there were elements of the diagnosis that supported their ideas. In the end, I saw her back at work three years later - but not herself. She had trouble concentrating and focusing. In the end she took a medical settlement - but she was living a great deal more independently than she could have under her parents' plan.

I think families contest living wills, at times, not because they don't respect the loved one's wishes, but because they are convinced - perhaps by facts, perhaps by hope - that the circumstances are not what the loved one had in mind. The center of the case with Schiavo seems to be the question of whether she's really in a persistant vegetative state or not. While understanding Colly's point about bias in websties, I would argue that there is some give and take here - it's not unthinkable that those doctors she mentions are right, and that their philosophical stance is derived from honest observation. It's difficult to convince people that someone laughing and smiling isn't responding; it's hard to be black and white and absolutely sure. In fact, it's not possible. Doctors are wrong. And desperate people cling to hope.

Not saying that they are always right - just that they aren't necessarily malicious either. They may really believe that she can improve.

Shanglan

I didn't say they weren't right Shang. I went out of my way to make sure I didn't acuse them of anything. I simply noted that due to their moral values, they are unlikely to render a verdict of PVS when they know the outcome is likely to be removal of the feeding tube, even if that diagnosis were the most likely.

I likewise noted that the other 30 something medical professionals are not named, so independent varification of the claim is impossible. I have made these notes, not to advance the idea she is in a vegetative state, but to point out the supporting documentation SnP is providing from the site are not credible. They may well be true, but the way in which the material is presented, prevents you from nailing down their sources or verifiying their claims.

I have specifically avoided advancing my subjective opinion and stuck only to the facts presented as I have seen them. If you wished to advance the opinion she shouldn't be taken off the feeding tube, there is ample information you could provide that is verifiable and while not completely above the accusation of biase, is nonetheless quite credible. At the same time, there is a wealth of information you could provide that shows she is in a vegetative state.

I did not seek to deduce the motives of the two doctors, I simply noted they do not come off to me as capable of objectivity, when their moral stands rule out death as an option while life can be sustained. I have the sneaking suspicion, that the other 30 mentioned have similar, or even more agressive stances on the morality of letting someone die, but I can't follow that suspicion up, because they aren't named.

In short, citing a body of opinion from professionals in the field that support your point, but decling to name any of them, other than the two who are known to have weighed in due to a trial, seems more like propaganda than an honest attempt to prove she isn't in a vegetative state.

The entire thing is simply saying if Snp wishes to support her assertion that the woman should not be taken off a feeding tube, she should provide support for that assertion that isn't so obviously partisan and easily dismissible.

 

[cantdog]

And people can still be cynics about humanity. Words fail.

 

[Black Tulip]

I'd want it done to me if I were her. I wouldn't want to be forced to live when everything else is gone. I can't imagine a worse kind of torture.

I agree. And I've been there when people close to me came to the end of their road.
Some of them not terribly old, but sick beyond a cure and suffering. I don't regret my actions in aiding them.

I have faith in my family to let me go with some dignity left if it comes to that.

To be honest it makes me sick to my stomach to hear some pastor drivel about the holiness of life. It makes me angry and upset and I wonder if he ever denied a loved one the peace this woman is craving.

 

[impressive]

I daresay there is a good bit of sophistry on both sides of the equation.

Personally, although it hardly matters, I am of the opinion that her husband is a phenomenal prick. (Sure, he's turned down a huge chunk of change in exchange for her guardianship -- but at this stage in the game, he'd be damning himself, possibly even opening himself up to perjury charges, if he accepted. I'd bet my last dollar that he really, really WANTS to make the sale. That's just my intuition talking, though -- and it's in my nature to trust my intuition.)

But that's beside the point. In all the spectacle, the grandstanders and the bystanders (who cannot or will not cease projecting their wishes for themselves on to Terri), I question why in the presence of such conflict, all possible interventions were not attempted in order to ascertain Terri's true wishes.

 

[Match Made In Heaven]

I've never heard anyone say, "No matter what you must keep me alive, even if I become a drooling, empty, withered shell of myself."

I would wish to be kept alive, rather than allowed to starve. Doctors can say all they want but they have no real way of knowing weather I am aware or capable of thought. It's just guesses. Until recently [and some docs still feel this way] newborns were considered incabable of experienceing real pain, and weren't even given anethstesia during circomsision. My doc recomended not to give them to my son (born in 93) for his, telling me that it would only hurt for a little while and wasn't much more painful than the anethstesia shot itself. And he was a male doctor!

It's off topic, but doctors do like to pretend they know for certain what they can only guess and speculate at.

 

[Match Made In Heaven]

And I forgot to mention- Terri is not drooling. She has been able to swallow her own salilva (as we all do)

Yes- I realize that the reports to keep her alive are biased. But I have seen more bias and complete misinformation on the pro-right to die sites. {repeatedly that she is in a coma for example}

The docs chosen by the father and the court, I believe, also have a track record of beliefs on the topic. Another thing is that on the sites that are not pro-life slanted, it's usually not even mentioned that *any* doctors have agreed with the family. The view shown is that her parents are going completely against the the doctors, the judge and the loving husband. Nothing that contradicts that view point is even mentioned.

Also- it is rediculous to say that she is in a PVS if you read the definition of that. It basicly means that she's not in a coma but she's unconscious. She is not unconsious, she is awake, her eyes are open, she can move and she can swallow. She is not a drooling piece of furnature.

Sweet.

 

[Match Made In Heaven]

I question why in the presence of such conflict, all possible interventions were not attempted in order to ascertain Terri's true wishes.

Exactly.

Sweet.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

And I forgot to mention- Terri is not drooling. She has been able to swallow her own salilva (as we all do)

Yes- I realize that the reports to keep her alive are biased. But I have seen more bias and complete misinformation on the pro-right to die sites. {repeatedly that she is in a coma for example}

The docs chosen by the father and the court, I believe, also have a track record of beliefs on the topic. Another thing is that on the sites that are not pro-life slanted, it's usually not even mentioned that *any* doctors have agreed with the family. The view shown is that her parents are going completely against the the doctors, the judge and the loving husband. Nothing that contradicts that view point is even mentioned.

Also- it is rediculous to say that she is in a PVS if you read the definition of that. It basicly means that she's not in a coma but she's unconscious. She is not unconsious, she is awake, her eyes are open, she can move and she can swallow. She is not a drooling piece of furnature.

Sweet.

I posted the definition of PVS sweet. It has nothing to do with opening your eyes, it has everything to do with a lack of higher cognitive function. Opening your eyes, reacting occasionally, but not consistently to stimuli, even laughing or smiling, can be reflex actions.

The definition I posted is from the National Institute of Health. What definition are you using that has opening your eyes and moving being inconsistant with the diagnosis?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

But that's beside the point. In all the spectacle, the grandstanders and the bystanders (who cannot or will not cease projecting their wishes for themselves on to Terri), I question why in the presence of such conflict, all possible interventions were not attempted in order to ascertain Terri's true wishes.

How do you know they weren't? It isn't like this has been rushed. It's been heard before 19 courts and over a period of years. The judge, apparently saw enough evidence that her wishes wre not to be left on life support to rule in favor of her Husband. I'm not trying to be argumentative, I just would like to know why you feel every effort hasn't been made to ascertain what her wishes were?

 

[impressive]

I'm not trying to be argumentative, I just would like to know why you feel every effort hasn't been made to ascertain what her wishes were?

Because all therapies and stimulation were discontinued after just 2 years (coincidentally -- or not -- right after the medical malpractice settlement). Two years, from my own personal experience with my son and his extensive anoxic brain injury, is inadequate.

Additionally, there are therapies that were not tried. "Vital stim," for example, could have lessened or eliminated Terri's reliance on a feeding tube -- rendering the battle moot. (If she ate by mouth, do you think they'd just refuse to feed her? It all boils down to that flimsy silicone tube.) Studies have shown its efficacy, and it recently got FDA approval. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy, while still considered experimental, is getting impressive results. Studies are ongoing.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Because all therapies and stimulation were discontinued after just 2 years (coincidentally -- or not -- right after the medical malpractice settlement). Two years, from my own personal experience with my son and his extensive anoxic brain injury, is inadequate.

Additionally, there are therapies that were not tried. "Vital stim," for example, could have lessened or eliminated Terri's reliance on a feeding tube -- rendering the battle moot. (If she ate by mouth, do you think they'd just refuse to feed her? It all boils down to that flimsy silicone tube.) Studies have shown its efficacy, and it recently got FDA approval. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy, while still considered experimental, is getting impressive results. Studies are ongoing.

Okies. I thought you wre saying nothing had been done to ascertain what her wishes were before the dmage had been done.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Colly, that's a fair point about the bias of the site. I'll throw in one more suggestion, however; are there biases inherent in the medical profession itself? Is a doctor who is under regular pressure from insurance companies to justify cost/benefit ratios and who knows that the money and space could be used for cases that would respond more quickly possibly more likely to render the PVS verdict? Or is it possible that PVS is being given as a "nothing else I can do with this person" diagnosis?

Again, like Colly - not accusing. Just suggesting that bias is possible in all directions. Like you, Colly, I'm trying not to make a statement on the case itself, because I don't think I can without more information. Like you, I suspect, I'm uneasy about many ramifications whatever way the case goes. I've heard excellent arguments on both sides, and conflicting information - to such an extent that I feel incapable of really knowing. I'm in a sort of "suspend all judgement due to lack of reliable information" position myself.

The SO and I had an interesting conversation today on the topic of what to do if one of us was in a similar position. Having seen a loved one miserable in an old age home, the SO leaned toward wanting the option to die peacefully even if not in life-threatening illness, but if, like the loved one, blind and deaf and unable to live life out. I was torn myself. Personally, I believe it morally wrong to do such a thing and would not do it myself. On the other hand, I have grave misgivings about the government's decision to contest such actions. I'm not convinced that it's really the government's business to legislate that choice. From a civil liberties point of view, I lean toward legalizing it ... but ...

I've seen disturbing polls from one of the Scandanavian countries - trying to remember which now - might have been Norway? What stuck was not the name of the country but the comments of those surveyed - elderly people in care homes. Many of them reported being afraid that they would be euthanized against their will; many others reported being pressured by families to commit suicide so as to save their money for inheritance. Now there's an ugly little box to open. I used to work in an elder care facility, and saw a wide range of family interactions. It unnerves me to think of some of those vulnerable people with young, "pushing" children and grandchildren whispering poison into their ears. I don't like the idea of people for whom life itself has become a burden being forced to live on ... but I shudder at the idea of the nest of vipers we might be breeding if we go the other way.

I wonder if there is any way to get the good without the bad.

Shanglan

 

[Amy Sweet]

Snp, maybe you should broaden your search a little. Another fact is that the husband has been offered MILLIONS to give up gardianship, to basically sell his wife's guardianship to her parents. He has turned down all overtures, overtures that have exceeded the amount of any settlement by significant numbers.

The very fact that the site dosen't mention this, implying the husband is interested only in money, tends to show a single minded view point with an agenda. In light of this fact, intellectual honesty requres you to investigate the claims there throughly, rather than just accepting them carte blanche.

As IMP noted, when quoting the site, there is no citation of their facts and the site is obviously partisan. This does not neccessarily invalidate their claims, but it does cast a serious credibility gap, when facts enimicable to their position, facts that are readily avialable, are not cited to provide balance.

I believe that the site did mention this, and i was aware of it from other keep terri alive sites. I'm sorry I left it out, I was just to tired to address it all at once, and I think imp has. There are also other questions to why her husband might not want her to improve, but the other camp seems to think these are nothing more than character assasinations, so why go into them?

I have seem by far more left out on the other reports than the family supporter sites. I assure you, I am looking at this from both sides. But the mainstream seems determined to leave out any evidence that supports Terri's family.

I can't address your other questions becuase I have to get offline and start on dinner.

Sweet.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colly, that's a fair point about the bias of the site. I'll throw in one more suggestion, however; are there biases inherent in the medical profession itself? Is a doctor who is under regular pressure from insurance companies to justify cost/benefit ratios and who knows that the money and space could be used for cases that would respond more quickly possibly more likely to render the PVS verdict? Or is it possible that PVS is being given as a "nothing else I can do with this person" diagnosis?

Again, like Colly - not accusing. Just suggesting that bias is possible in all directions. Like you, Colly, I'm trying not to make a statement on the case itself, because I don't think I can without more information. Like you, I suspect, I'm uneasy about many ramifications whatever way the case goes. I've heard excellent arguments on both sides, and conflicting information - to such an extent that I feel incapable of really knowing. I'm in a sort of "suspend all judgement due to lack of reliable information" position myself.

The SO and I had an interesting conversation today on the topic of what to do if one of us was in a similar position. Having seen a loved one miserable in an old age home, the SO leaned toward wanting the option to die peacefully even if not in life-threatening illness, but if, like the loved one, blind and deaf and unable to live life out. I was torn myself. Personally, I believe it morally wrong to do such a thing and would not do it myself. On the other hand, I have grace misgivings about the government's decision to contest such actions. I'm not convinced that it's really the government's business to legislate that choice. From a civil liberties point of view, I lean toward legalizing it ... but ...

I've seen disturbing polls from one of the Scandanavian countries - trying to remember which now - might have been Norway? What stuck was not the name of the country but the comments of those surveryed - elderly people in care homes. Many of them reported being afraid that they would be euthanized against their will; many others reported being pressured by families to commit suicide so as to save their money for inheritance. Now there's an ugly little box to open. I used to work in an elder care facility, and saw a wide range of family interactions. It unnerves me to think of some of those vulnerable people with young, "pushing" children and grandchildren whispering poison into their ears. I don't like the idea of people for whom life itself has become a burden being forced to live on ... but I shudder at the idea of the nest of vipers we might be breeding if we go the other way.

I wonder if there is any way to get the good without the bad.

Shanglan

Like you, I don't feel I have nearly enough information to render an opinion. I am absolutely horrified at the U.S. Congress trying to step in and legislate it's opinion on it into law. But that's not the issue most here are upset about.

The only salient points I have been able to glean are:

1. In an evaluation, the only doctor who can be assumed to be independant, the court ordered physician rendered a diagnosis of PVS.

2. Through all of the court battles and wrangling, the judge is convinced she didn't wish to remain on life support and has ordered her feeding tube removed at the husband's behest.

3. It has been removed twice, but in both cases politicans have interveened. Not the courts. But politicians. That precedent scares the bejeezus out of me. Especially since the house and senate are meeting on a saturday to make it a third political intervention.

4. All indication of higher function have been reported by the parents. Apparently, no other visitor or hospital worker has seen them. I infer this, because if such activity as speaking had been recorded it would seem to throughly invalidate the diagnosis. Speech, under any circumstance, shows at least some higher cognitive function.

5. The issue is so senstitive and so personal that the views held are ripe for conflict as there appears to be no acceptable middle ground. Which is I suppose only right, since the crux is life or death and there is no middle ground there.

 

[CharleyH]

It's YOUR decision, though. NOT someone else's. If you feel strongly about it, this case is perfect example of the need for advance directives.

Personally, as the parent of a child who uses a feeding tube for nutrition and hydration (and who has been referred to as nothing more than "needy furniture"), I know for a fact he is in no way less of person due to his disabilities. He is full of life, happy (and usually laughing) the majority of the time. I cannot even begin to imagine the horror this woman and her loved ones must be enduring. She interacts with her parents, and if provided appropriate therapies (that have been withheld) stands a reasonable chance of regaining some communication skills. At the very least, those therapies should be provided in order to determine her true wishes.

No offence, IMP, but having gone through something ...

Most people articulate their wishes to family before hand (I am not saying this is your situation, or that particular persons). However, it comes up in discussion over the course of life, and there comes a time when it is counted on that family respect those wishes, even if that person is incapable of articulating them at the time. There is a selfishness in death - for the living - that those who are diing/ are living dead, do not have.

I sometimes think, having seen to experience, that we are kinder to animals in our view of death. I am not saying this is the case all the time, but what bothers me about the article is the government interference. How dare they intervene! On behalf of whom?

Unbeknownst to most of the population, doctors are quite kind in their distribution of morphine for those in excrutiating pain, and quite frankly, I thank god for them.

 

[flawed_ethics]

Well, it looks like Congress will intervene.

I hate to see good television entertainment go off the air too soon. Hopefully this 'bonus' season of Terri will bring all the central cast characters to a head and roll out on an exciting series finale. The parade of special guest stars ought to be worth watching for alone. I understand Frist and even G.W. Bush will be making cameos - how's that for star power?

Either way, it should make for a ratings extravaganza. 'Probably not as good or as relevant as Survivor, but the clever writing and surprise twists make Terri a show to keep tuning in to.

(Christ, show some humanity and let the woman pass on already.)