Governor's Orders To Keep Woman Alive

[goofyfish]

Have high emotional aspects clouded the judgement of the Governor and the Legislature? This case went through innumerable court decision supporting the legality of removing the feeding tube, based on a variety of medical opinions. But politicians think they know better?

Florida Gov. Jeb Bush ordered a feeding tube reinserted into a brain-damaged woman Tuesday afternoon, less than two hours after the Legislature passed a bill allowing him to do so.

Florida lawmakers gave Bush the authority in an effort to keep Terri Schiavo alive nearly a week after the tube was removed at the request of her husband, Michael. The lawmakers' move effectively overturned a court ruling that she be allowed to die. (Full text here)

And, by the way, the irony that The State which claims to value her life above all else, is also the nation's fourth highest in criminal executions, is not lost on me.

The fact that the law will not likely survive judicial review aside, are we sure we know this woman's mental status? There does seem to be some debate on it, between those who presumably have her best interests at heart (her husband and her parents).

On one hand, even a brain-dead person may move spontaneously (in truth, even a fresh corpse can twitch and move). Someone in a "persistent vegetative state" isn't quite brain dead - they can and do shift position a little, some of them moan with painful stimuli, their eyes may be open, their mouths might move. So it could be her parents are fooled by vestigial reflexes and occasional muscle spasms into thinking that, not only are the lights still on, there's still someone home... somewhere in there. On the other hand, it may be that she does have some rudimentary "consciousness". Is she aware? How aware? Is she capable of suffering?

So ask yourself - where do you draw the line? What level of consciousness do you think is necessary to make life worthwhile?

:m: Peace.

 

[Flores]

this is such a difficult and delicate subject. How do we really draw a line while doctors have been wrong plenty before, and when does the costs and the sufferings outweight the benefits of the medical intervention to sustain a life? If there was a fixed price to life, this would be an easier question, but unfortunately, we don't know anything about the value of life, the purpose of life, the cost of life, and thus have no idea about the price of life.

This is one of those real big questions, much harder than quantum and general relativity and as complicated and impossible to anwer like combining the two beasts. Neverthless, a unified decision must be made and no going backs or regrets should enter the unknown equation.

On the other hand, I think that letting the patient die by hunger is cruel, so assisted death may be needed.

 

[goofyfish]

Originally posted by Flores
How do we really draw a line while doctors have been wrong plenty before, and when does the costs and the sufferings outweight the benefits of the medical intervention to sustain a life?

There is a deeper concern for me than that posed by the moral issue.

After 13 years of legal wrangling, Terri's husband won the right to have her feeding tube removed, only to have his decision revoked by the governor. What does this mean for the fundamental right of patient autonomy? If, for example, I was in a car accident this afternoon and Mrs. Fish ordered the removal of life support equipment in accordance with my wishes, would the governor have the right to step in and prevent this? If I was keeping my wife’s shell alive in accordance with her wishes, could the governor step in and order her feeding tube be removed? In sum, I believe important medical decisions should be made by the patient him/herself, or by his/her legal proxy, not by any outsider.

And certainly not to advance the career of a politician.

:m: Peace.

 

[Flores]

Originally posted by goofyfish
After 13 years of legal wrangling, Terri's husband won the right to have her feeding tube removed, only to have his decision revoked by the governor. What does this mean for the fundamental right of patient autonomy?

It's definetly not a good move and I agree that the motion should not have been reversed. It's clearly butting into none of their business. That's double agony for everyone except the patient who god knows what kind of ordeal is she going through.

Originally posted by goofyfish
If, for example, I was in a car accident this afternoon and Mrs. Fish ordered the removal of life support equipment in accordance with my wishes, would the governor have the right to step in and prevent this?

Not if the wishes were stated clearly and signed. I believe in the case above, it was a verbal thing that could not be substanciated.

Originally posted by goofyfish
In sum, I believe important medical decisions should be made by the patient him/herself, or by his/her legal proxy, not by any outsider.

I totally agree, but you have to factor in the medical opinion and condition, the public can't simply make decision regarding intake of medecine to start or stop an existing life. it really should be the doctor's opinion, afterall he is the expert in the field and we are all really mediocres acting on beliefs.

Originally posted by goofyfish
And certainly not to advance the career of a politician.

:m: Peace.

For sure, but the reality is that every action by a politician is to advance the career of that politician, they work by a different set of ethics that states that "something is not done for nothing."..

 

[goofyfish]

An act of human kindness.

BARCELONA, Spain (AP) -- Snowflake, an extremely rare albino gorilla and the most popular resident of Barcelona Zoo, died of skin cancer early Monday morning, zoo officials said.

Zoo officials put the elderly gorilla to sleep after his health deteriorated in recent days, zoo officials said. (Full text here)

Yet Terri Schiavo lingers on.

:m: Peace.

 

[whitewolf]

Um, I think that's the general policy throughout the US. Our country has been generally against physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia for ages.