Dr Lou Natic said:She still has the ability to beg her mother for mercy apparently.
If you say kill her with a hammer, i would most probably agree with you for it is better than starving her to death.
Dr Lou Natic said:She still has the ability to beg her mother for mercy apparently.
So it's better to leave her as a vegetable instead of letting her go naturally? Hey I agree, I don't think much of the starving to death thing. That's why in such cases, she should be given a nice large dose of morphine or something to let her go without pain and to save those around her from further distress of watching her starve to death. After all, when one thinks about it, the only people who will be distressed at her starving to death will be her parents, because Terri does not know if she is starving to death or not. She has no consciousness or awareness to register pain. That is the result of being in a vegetative state.okinrus said:She wasn't suffering until the courts decided to starve her to death.
Yes, I'm sure that when she was well and had a functioning brain, she said I don't want to be kept on life support but keeping me alive as a vegetable is alright.okinrus said:We also don't know her true desire. Sure, several years ago she may have said she didn't want to be kept on life support, but I doubt she said she wanted to be starved to death.
Yes and the parents of serial killers have often commented that their child was good and an angel. The point is okinrus is that she won't recover. The damage done to her cerebral cortex and thalamus irreversible. The woman has NO brain activity whatsoever.okinrus said:Furthermore, the parents argument is that she could recover.
Ronald Cranford, a neurology professor at the University of Minnesota Medical School who has examined Schiavo, says there are a number of signs showing that her cerebral cortex has severe damage from the six-minute period in 1990 when her heart stopped and her brain was without oxygen. He said electroencephalograms, also known as EEGs or brain wave tests, of Schiavo's brain have revealed no activity. He has also reported that areas of her brain have shown shrinkage — a sign of irreversible damage.
Despite such findings, Bernat says it's easy to still believe a patient is aware.
"It's common for family members to feel that their loved ones are aware. Part of it is motivated by the love they have for the person — they want to interpret any indication as a sign that they are aware," he said.
Link
Yes she is in a persistent vegetative state. Now lets look at what it means to be in a persistent vegetative state.okinrus said:She's not brain death. She's in a persistent vegistative state. But more to the matter, if she was dead, we wouldn't be using the pronoun "she", instead using something more on the lines of "body".
No she's not on life support. But without being fed through a tube, she would not survive. She is fed not because she is hungry, but because she needs to be given nutrients to allow her body to survive. And how do you know her wishes are unclear? Her husband seems to think that her wishes were clear enough when he waited 7 years to make the decision to let her go naturally, after he'd realised that there was no chance of recovery. This is especially in light of the fact that the American Academy of Neurology has deemed that if one is in a vegetative state for a year, there is pretty much no chance of recovery. And her husband waited nearly 7 years before he made the choice to let her go. By that point, there's virtually no chance of her recovering, no matter what the medical technology that exists. Her brain has been so damaged that it's shrinking. If medical technology existed that could help her, it would have done so already. We don't know what could come in 20 or 30 years from now. Does that mean we should keep her going like this for another 20 or so years just in case? What the hell will have happened to her brain by that point? Is it fair to keep her alive like this because the parents can't let her go? In hindsight I'm sure she'd have set things down in writing in a legal document stating her wishes exactly had she known that her parents would have wanted to keep her like a well kept cauliflower. But she did not. It seems that her parents aren't disputing her wishes, but as you have said, they are disputing that she "could" recover and because they are strict Catholic and it goes against their belief to let her go naturally by removing the feeding tube. I'm sure that had she known her parents would do this, she'd have made her wishes quite clear.She's not no a machine or "life support". Her wishes are unclear. Did she want to be removed when there was no chance of recovery? Is there a chance? Some doctors say so, and, knowing the increase medical technology, she might have a good chance..
Hmmm... go the irony. They kill others with in the to preserve life. Do you not see the contradiction here? Do you not see how hypocritical that sounds? Are they not murderers themselves? As for self defence, sure that would work if they were the one's who were under attack or in danger. So how does taking out Terri's feeding tube result in a prolifer loser chanting outside the hospital, threatening to kill the judge or husband, be constituted as an act of self defence? The loser outside is not the one who's in danger? How does that work exactly? Ah yes.. silly me.. It's self-defence by proxy. While they may not be in danger themselves, they will kill to defend the self of another. They're quite happy to blow up a family health centre to kill the staff who perform abortions, along with any other people who may be going there for obstetrics care during their pregnancy as not all people who visit those clinics do so for abortions... but hey.. they're killing to preserve life so it's alright. Pathetic excuse for a bunch of pathetic people who are who they kill or threaten to kill. But that's another subject altogether not pertaining to this topic.I'm not sure what you mean here? If there's direct causation, they kill in self defence or to preserve life.
Well, from my perspective, killing or outright by lethal injection would be more humane than starving her. In fact, starving her to death combines a vague notion of ethics with the notion that active force must be there to kill someone. Nothing can be further from the truth. To cause someone to live without food or water, when their own preservance isn't at stake, is murder.So it's better to leave her as a vegetable instead of letting her go naturally? Hey I agree, I don't think much of the starving to death thing. That's why in such cases, she should be given a nice large dose of morphine or something to let her go without pain and to save those around her from further distress of watching her starve to death.
You're confusing her inability to express herself with her consciousness. We don't know whether she's consciousness or not, and some in her condition, who've since recovered, tell us otherwise. "Patients who have recovered from such a state can recall things that were said or done to them while no one knew they were aware." http://www.humanlife.org/publications/imposeddeath14.pdfShe has no consciousness or awareness to register pain. That is the result of being in a vegetative state.
I don't believe her husband can be trusted because he has basically situated himself in a state where he has a conflict of interest. Her parents contest this point.Her husband seems to think that her wishes were clear enough when he waited 7 years to make the decision to let her go naturally, after he'd realised that there was no chance of recovery.
Possibly. With her case, I must mention, there's more chance for to recover. But because we were created physically from one cell, practically anything is possible medically.We don't know what could come in 20 or 30 years from now. Does that mean we should keep her going like this for another 20 or so years just in case? What the hell will have happened to her brain by that point?
Terri's also Catholic. While the husband said she was not a "devout" Catholic, he does not have the authority to make that claim. So, it's resonable to think that when Terri said she wanted to be taken off of lifesupport, she first meant to be taken off of lifesupport when no hope was left--there is hope in this case--and, second, she was likely referring to a condition where she was effectively brain dead--she's not brain dead in this case. But without hearing the testimony, I can't really debate further on this point.I'm sure she'd have set things down in writing in a legal document stating her wishes exactly had she known that her parents would have wanted to keep her like a well kept cauliflower. But she did not. It seems that her parents aren't disputing her wishes, but as you have said, they are disputing that she "could" recover and because they are strict Catholic and it goes against their belief to let her go naturally by removing the feeding tube. I'm sure that had she known her parents would do this, she'd have made her wishes quite clear.
No, a police officer kills to protect life. I don't see the problem with it.Hmmm... go the irony. They kill others with in the to preserve life. Do you not see the contradiction here? Do you not see how hypocritical that sounds?
If the person their killing is directly attemting to kill another human being, then their not murders but protecting other human beings. But by breaking the law, they've already consented to the punishments and they'd have to show how killing the person attempting to murder was the only way to stop the murder and would stop the murder. Similar restrictions are true for just war.Are they not murderers themselves?
Presumably, killing the judge or the husband wouldn't stop Terri from dying. But, then again, it might resonable to try to protect Terri. The force nessary, however, would only kill other innocent lives, I think, and you'd still have trouble showing it was the only way and the that it's likely to succeed.So how does taking out Terri's feeding tube result in a prolifer loser chanting outside the hospital, threatening to kill the judge or husband, be constituted as an act of self defence?
That’s one of the things that really gets me about this whole situation. They have to starve/dehydrate her to death rather than just give her a large dose of something that’s lethal and painless, all because some people like to draw a distinction between actively killing someone and “allowing them to die.”Bells said:Personally I'd want a giant dose of morphine to send me on my way without pain.
Patients in a persistent vegetative state do not feel pain, nor do they "suffer," says Michael De Georgia, MD, head of the neurology-neurosurgery intensive care unit at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation here.
Pain, as well as suffering, requires consciousness, which is lacking in a person in a persistent vegetative state, says Dr. De Georgia.
____________________The time has come to let Terri Schiavo die with dignity - and in peace.
The battle over her fate was mostly a noble one, and always a heart-rending one, but it has turned into a circus.
Nothing anyone can do will alter the outcome now. The arrests will make no difference; yesterday's high-profile arrival of the Rev. Jesse Jackson's stretch limousine will change nothing; Randall Terry's publicity-mongering is pointless.
The best of America - two sides fighting hard for their beliefs, using the law, not violence - is about to be overtaken by the worst of America; showboating, paranoia, lawlessness.
Enough. It's over. Let her die in peace. Terri Schiavo's parents have fought the good fight, and they have lost ....
.... Now, again, it is time to step back and let Terri Schiavo die.
She deserves at least that much.
God rest her soul.
New York Post Online
He also became a nurse, so he could understand and provide better treatments for her! That's not the action of an insensitive man.Arditezza said:Why, because he's the only one that cared about her enough to put her in a place of peace? ...