Dave_Schuldt Posted March 19, 2005 Share Posted March 19, 2005 It costs major $ to keep her alive. Could that $ be spent elswhere and save more lives? Drug rehab, health care for poor folks, healthy school lunches, STD screening, health education....... What is more important one life or many? It all comes down to money. Do we want to pay to keep one person alive? I wonder what would happen if those folks who wanted to keep her alive had to pay for her care. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitergal Posted March 19, 2005 Share Posted March 19, 2005 Or is it more of a debate over family? Husband vs. Parents? Who should really have the final say? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billygoat Posted March 19, 2005 Share Posted March 19, 2005 It's a tough one but I would have to say, Husband. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_Schuldt Posted March 19, 2005 Author Share Posted March 19, 2005 the feeding tube has been removed for now. The same people who opose abortion are supporting Schiavos' feeding tube. Some congressman said we have no right to decide to let her die. We decide who will live and who will die every day. We declared war on Iraq therefor we decided that a bucch of Iraqies and our troops would die. We decide not to provide health isurence to lots of people as a result they suffer and die. We let drunks drive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisT Posted March 19, 2005 Share Posted March 19, 2005 well I was in favor of removing the feeding tube until I saw video of Ms. Schiavo sitting up in bed talking and laughing. While she appeared to be brain damaged she was certainly not comatose. How do you kill a person like that? I'm not sure when the video was made or what her current condition is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knelson Posted March 19, 2005 Share Posted March 19, 2005 (snip...) We decide not to provide health isurence to lots of people as a result they suffer and die. We let drunks drive. Â I usually somewhat agree with you Dave, but you kind of went off the deep end with this one... Â Last I checked, a hospital won't kick out a suffering or seriously injured/ill person due to lack of insurance. (Now whether or not they can pay for preventative visits to catch any life-threatening problems early is a different story.) Â And I believe it is technically against the law for a drunk to drive. Friends may let friends drive drunk, but as far as "WE" (the government, I assume) letting drunks drive, "WE" don't. Â And do you actually know where her medical care is being funded from, or are you just assuming that it's state/federal money? Â This issue isn't just blue vs red, anti-abortion vs pro-rights. It's mainly about what a person's definition of "suffering" is. The parents think suffering is watching her die of malnutrition. The husband thinks suffering is her constant vegitative state. Unfortunately, we don't know what Terri's definition of suffering is. Â The main thing to learn from this is... MAKE A LIVING WILL, no matter how young you are. Â -kurt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisT Posted March 19, 2005 Share Posted March 19, 2005 excellent advice! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chirp Posted March 19, 2005 Share Posted March 19, 2005 Some one needs to ____ Jeb.. Â Post editted by warmspot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_Schuldt Posted March 19, 2005 Author Share Posted March 19, 2005 It doesn't mater who is paying for her care. We all pay one way or another, taxes or inshurence rates. There are different stages of coma, she may be talking, but is she resoponding to what's around her or is it just random. It's a tough call but after 15 years of little or no improvement it's time to make the call. The laws aren't keeping up with advances in medical care. Why all the attention on a middle class white woman when others around the world are starving. How much food and medicine would one day of her care buy for the starving in Sudan? In all the news reports I haven't heard anything about $. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glacier Posted March 19, 2005 Share Posted March 19, 2005 $80K a year Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted March 19, 2005 Share Posted March 19, 2005 I don't feel any of us have been given a true picture of what Ms. Schiavo's true condition is. I certainly don't know what to believe. If she is in a "persistent vegitative state" it is not possible for her to be sitting up and talking in a video. The doctors never said that she was "brain dead", which means a total lack of brain wave activity. No one can really know what is going in inside her head. She could be cognizant of what is going on around her, but be utterly unable to make her body do anything. Man if that was me, I'd want to be dead in the worst way. Â So is this an assisted suicide or a mercy killing? I wouldn't want to be in her husband's shoes for anything. I can't judge the man, because I can't imagine what it would be like to be him. I think that the courts did the right thing in letting him be the one do decide. No one else should have that right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry_Pi Posted March 19, 2005 Share Posted March 19, 2005 Hello capitalist! Wake up people, she had a heart attack and her brain was deprived of oxygen years ago. She's a friggin vegetable so pull the plug. Her husband knows what's best for her and the government has no business intervening. The same goes for gay marriages, fairies. Thank you for allow communist to post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted March 20, 2005 Share Posted March 20, 2005 Hello capitalist! Wake up people, she had a heart attack and her brain was deprived of oxygen years ago. She's a friggin vegetable so pull the plug. Her husband knows what's best for her and the government has no business intervening. The same goes for gay marriages, fairies. Thank you for allow communist to post. Â Have you ever seen someone who is profoundly mentally retarded? Not much difference. I suppose they should all be euthanized as well. Hmm, reminds me of a certain 20th century, teutonic ideology... they are all Untermenschen, nicht wahr? Und wir muessen Lebensraum haben... Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_Schuldt Posted March 20, 2005 Author Share Posted March 20, 2005 I wonder what those folks who think it's wrong to pull the plug think about capitol punishment? Might there be a double standard? If every life is sacred are some more sacred than others? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted March 20, 2005 Share Posted March 20, 2005 That's "every SPERM is sacred" Â Personally I think letting her starve to death is BS. It would be better to euthanize her quickly in order to have transplantable organs. Do some good, save some lives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alpinfox Posted March 20, 2005 Share Posted March 20, 2005 Dru I agree with you but for ethical rather than practical reasons. It's more humane to euthenize someone/something with drugs rather than starving them to death. Â However, you make a good point. I wonder if her organs are usable after 5 years of being bedridden and fed through a tube? Â KK, I don't know, but I suspect that T.S.'s level of self-awareness is below that of a retarded person's. Is she responsive to painful stimuli? Is it really true that she "tracked a balloon with her gaze" and has responded to verbal stimuli or is that just wishful thinking on the part of her parents/lawyer? Â The mental test I apply to these sorts of cases is, if I was in T.S.'s place, what would I want? The answer is that I would want to be euthenized. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted March 20, 2005 Share Posted March 20, 2005 If she really is a vegetable I don't think one can make a humane distinction between starvation and rapid euthanasia? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted March 20, 2005 Share Posted March 20, 2005 I wonder what those folks who think it's wrong to pull the plug think about capitol punishment? Might there be a double standard? If every life is sacred are some more sacred than others? Â there's a profound difference between a person guilty of heinous crimes and an innocent who suffered a terrible accident. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted March 20, 2005 Share Posted March 20, 2005 Yup. Capital punishment and euthenasia, like many things that are physically equivalent, are clearly not morally equivalent to one another. Â I'm not sure how if there's a clear answer to the ethical conundrums that this case presents, but in general I decide these things by looking at the true rationale for ending a person's life. If the motivation is truly to end their very real suffering, then I general support it, but if its being done for other motives masquerading as mercy, such as the inconvenience or expense that maintaining someone with a severe disability or on life support will present to the family or institutions responsible for caring for the person, I can't see how one can endorse ending their life. The only time when this gets more complicated is when there is actually such a scarcity of resources that maintaining this person's care will impose a fatal hardship on others who might otherwise live - and there aren't many situations like this in developed countries anymore. Â Â Anyhow - if it's now a fact that she will be killed - a lethal injection of sedatives seems far more humane than death by starvation. If it's true that her mental state can't be ascertained, then it seems clear that those making the decision should err on the side of caution and assume that she can still feel pain and act accordingly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Off_White Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 It would be better to euthanize her quickly in order to have transplantable organs. Do some good, save some lives. Â I don't know the details of drug based euthanasia in humans, but I know with farm animals if you kill them with drugs, the meat is not edible, hence the popularity of using a gun. NOT that I'm endorsing that method for TS, I just don't know that her organs would be usable after a massive dose of barbituates. I do think the starvation approach is gruesome and pointlessly cruel. Â It is a relief to know there is nothing of import that needs the attention of congress, so they can spare the time and attention to pass a bill specifically for this individual and look into the problems of multi-million dollar earning steroid junkies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 You can administer euthanasia without drugs...for instance by removing the heart and other vital organs. Â I guess the difference between starvation and euthanasia is passive vs. active. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norman_Clyde Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 (edited) It's more humane to euthenize someone/something with drugs rather than starving them to death. Â When a person is deprived of food AND LIQUIDS, they don't starve to death but die of dehydration. Although this sounds awful, believe it or not it is considered one of the most peaceful ways to go. An alert person gradually gets sleepy, then comatose. The sensation of thirst is less troublesome than you would guess-- I don't know why, it just is. We know this from experience, caring for people too sick to eat and drink who have foregone artificial hydration and nourishment. The public has a dire need to be educated in this area. I suspect a lot of the people writing to their congresspersons, urging them to meddle in this poor family's private business, think that removing the tube dooms Terri Schiavo to a painful death. They're wrong. They are like the family members of cancer patients who get anxious when the sick person won't eat, so the sick person eats to please his family, then feels sicker than he did before. (This phenomenon has been documented as well.) It disgusts me when Congress presumes it has the right to meddle in private affairs like this. It shows how little they really care about the public good. I have yet to hear Bill Frist say, "As an extremely intelligent, smart, clever, wise, know-better-than-you DOCTOR, I can tell you that withholding food and liquids leads to a peaceful, painless death. In addition, I'd like to take this moment to urge all my constituents to GET A LIVING WILL. Don't just write it down, either. Tell EVERYONE your wishes. Make sure your spouse, your parents and your siblings know just how to handle your case if you end up like Terri Schiavo!" Â Maybe someone from congress is saying something like the above, and the media is just failing to report it. I doubt it. Â Regarding organ transplants: when someone dies of dehydration, the kidneys and liver fail prior to death. The only way to preserve someone's organs is to remove them while the person is alive and the organs are functioning. "Brain Death" is a cultural construct designed to make society feel better about removing the organs of living people. But that's another thread. Edited March 21, 2005 by Norman_Clyde Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 Hmmm. Let's see if I have this right, here... Â Conservatives want to save unborn lives, save the infirm, and kill capital offenders. Â Liberals don't care if the unborn are killed, believe in euthanasia, but want to save child-killers from capital punishment. Â Â Looks like both sides score equally on the inconsistency-meter! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 Assuming your generalizations are true, and ignoring a number of religious groups who oppose both abortion and euthanasia, it would be more accurate to suggest your liberals support voluntary killing (abortion has the mother's consent and euthenasia the patient's) while conservatives support only involuntary killing (whether it be the murderer who doesn't want to die, or the civilian in the foreign country or soldier on the battlefield). Â This is more consistent and also makes the conservatives look remarkably bloodthirsty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knelson Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 It disgusts me when Congress presumes it has the right to meddle in private affairs like this. It shows how little they really care about the public good. I have yet to hear Bill Frist say, "As an extremely intelligent, smart, clever, wise, know-better-than-you DOCTOR, I can tell you that withholding food and liquids leads to a peaceful, painless death. In addition, I'd like to take this moment to urge all my constituents to GET A LIVING WILL. Don't just write it down, either. Tell EVERYONE your wishes. Make sure your spouse, your parents and your siblings know just how to handle your case if you end up like Terri Schiavo!"   This really isn't about "right to life" or "assisted suicide"... it's a long ugly complicated mess.  http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/timeline.htm  -kurt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.