News-Record.com

Pull the plug/tube.

Quick aside: My wife remarked last night that too many folks are throwing around phrases like "removing the tube is playing God", when they aren't willing to admit that inserting was too.

In addition to a living will stating my wishes, i also gave my wife healthcare power-of-attorney to ensure she can execute my wishes. She has also done likewise. You can never have too many "legal" documents in this day and age.

Its about my wishes, no one elses...

Lucky for me, my family is a little more reasonable about such matters. I have a living will set up, just in case minds change. If I ever get in a state similar to Terry Sciavo's, I'd far rather call it a day than ask anyone to keep my heart beating for no good reason, with no hope for any sort of recovery.

Its about my wishes, no one elses... And we are suppose to take the word of her husband who could have gotten a divorce but instead choose to hang on hoping that he could benefit financially?

The parents raised her. As a parent I would feel that I would know my childs wishes better than some one who only knew her a few years.

If the parents and family wish to continue feeding her and caring for her until her heart beats it's last beat on it's own accord then more power to them.

"And we are suppose to take the word of her husband who could have gotten a divorce but instead choose to hang on hoping that he could benefit financially?"

Who are you to decide what Mr. Schiavo's motives are, or whether they're pure enough? Or did you miss the fact that he turned down $1 million to walk away from this case just last week? After all the lawyer's fees and medical bills are settled, I seriously doubt there will be much financial benefit left for him.

If I were in his place, I'd certainly not need to be lectured on what's best for me and my family by total strangers and people who are more interested in gaining political brownie points with the religious "right" than in deciding what's best for my family.

I hope you never have to deal with a loved one who is in that condition. But if you do, be sure you enjoy the right to decide the best path without others arguing about it across the world. I mean, enjoy it while you can.

I'm reading that another group is urging people to pray for Terri, that her parents succeed in their appeal.
Is prayer appropriate here?
What about the idea that reinserting the tube is playing God?

Hey, Nancy!

You know, I read yesterday that one of the arguments presented to the court in the Schiavo case was that removing the feeding tube was "forcing Terri into the position of refusing food and water, which is a mortal sin in her religion."

Talk about twisted logic!

But it seems to me that all Christian folks would expect this woman, assuming she's devout, to have no problem "getting to heaven." I don't see the problem here.

But prayer is probably going to be a very common response to the events in Florida. I expect it will bring comfort to many who are upset over this, on both sides. In that respect, it will be a good thing. I only hope that the family will be able to handle the funeral in a civil manner. I doubt it, but one can hope...

I would want them to unplug me and let me go to glory, the same thing that they should do for Terry Schiavo.

And forcing her to refuse food and water...wasn't this woman suffering from an eating disorder and isn't that why she's in this condition. Gimme a break.

And what money is this husband sposed to get??? She hasn't worked for AT LEAST 15 years, we know, so I'm guessing there's no benefit from that front, and I'm doubting he's going to be able to get his hands on anything she might have inherited from her parents or other family members...people PUHLEEZE! Let this woman die in peace and dignity and stop with the politics and prose.

Also (yes, I'm hot about this issue!!!), as a grown woman, my husband -- who I would be making life decisions with, including what to do about our children and assets should one of us die -- is much more likely to know my feelings and desires on this issue than my parents, who long ago stopped having any interaction in my day-to-day life and finances. So to say that her parents know more about what she might want than her husband suggests to me that you aren't married or you have failed to cleave on to your husband/wife as the Bible instructs.

Eric , your ignorant blather and your comments about you hope I never have to do it are almost beyond comment. Even worse, enjoy it while you can. You have overstepped the boundries of decency Eric. Your comments and rationale were totally uncalled for. But for the sake of satisfying your ignorance. I had to make that decision, not once but twice. How about you Eric?It was extremely painful for me. No Eric it was not spread over the nation but over the family and it all brought the same conflict. The only difference was the size of the conflict. I don't see the pain in Mr. Schiavo's eyes. I do see the pain in the parents faces and eyes that I endured. So climb off your moralistic high horse Eric and get a dose of humility.
You owe me and all those who have endured this and read this post an apology Eric for your inconsiderate , ignorant comments. I am sure however you will find a way to rationalize your view. That's ok, I will forgive your inconsideration and ignorance.

mrproduce, I'm very sorry that you've been there. I lost my mother only last year, and it was hard seeing her fade away in the hospice. So I guess we're both aware of some of the personal feelings that this creates.

You say you don't see pain in Mr. Sciavo's eyes. Remember that he spent 8 years by his wife's side before coming to his decision. He's had 7 years to deal with it since then. The central point here is that neither of us have any business deciding what he should do about his wife, let alone a bunch of politicians who are pandering for the TV reporters at Fox.

The Supreme Court has just rejected the appeal by Terri's parents.
I saw "The Truman Show" the other day -- that Jim Carrey movie about a boy who grows up under the glare of tv and he's the only one who doesn't know that the world can see his every move. I wonder what Terri would have thought about that 40-second footage of her life being shown around the globe.

is much more likely to know my feelings and desires on this issue than my parents, who long ago stopped having any interaction in my day-to-day life and
In your being "hot" over this issue perhaps you have failed to condsider all the situation.

It is the parents who have cared for this woman on a day to day basis for years while the husband, choose not to cleave to his spouse as the Bible instructs (your words govwriter in being quick to judge) but instead live with another woman (in sin, I am sure you would say govwriter) and have children with her. Now would you care to re-think your reasoning in that light or choose to only judge others for having an opinion different from yours. Or perhaps you have your righteous robes wrapped so tightly around you that you are strangulated in your ability to think.
In my post I offered nothing more than the comment that if the parents wish to care for this young woman for who knows how long, then so be it.
Given the background of the parents caring for this young woman and raising her they might just have more insight into things than others give them credit for. The same for the husband can be considered also.

Mr. Produce!! Good to hear from you...however, your argument has a flaw -- her parents may have taken care of her for the past 15 years, but their caring for her has no bearing on WHAT HER WISHES MAY HAVE BEEN, which is what this whole dramatic nonsense is about. It's not about her parents wanting to take care of her or her husband deciding he doesn't want to care for her any longer, it's about about whether or not she wanted to be kept alive in this state and NO MATTER that in those 15 years her husband may have created separate life, he surely was privvy to her desires about this situation before her condition set in and I think her wishes should be honored.

This case makes me think of instances where gay and lesbian couples have had plans for their funerals and care etc. and families have disregarded those wishes and even barred the partner from seeing their loved one and/or attending a funeral or memorial service or whatever because they were angry or refused to accept that their child/sister/brother etc. was a homosexual.

OK, last word on this today. OK, maybe not, but Slate has a good presentation of the facts in the Schiavo case. Check it out here: http://www.slate.com/id/2115208/

"Good to hear from you...however, your argument has a flaw"

You evidently did not read my post completely, govtwriter. Make sure you read the last sentence carefully. Would she wish to die? Don't guess we will ever know now will we. All we can do is speculate at best. If those who decide have decided wrong, may God have mercy on their souls.

"In my post I offered nothing more than the comment that if the parents wish to care for this young woman for who knows how long, then so be it.
Given the background of the parents caring for this young woman and raising her they might just have more insight into things than others give them credit for. The same for the husband can be considered also."

There is a difference in unpluging life support and starving someone.
But utmost is the desires of the patient and not the family members.

I sometimes wonder about our medical ethicists. When there's no medical hope for our cats or dogs, we just put them to sleep and they stop suffering in minutes. When there's no medical hope for humans, we end up with scenes like this.

I think we need to re-think this. It's not the best solution, IMO.

mr. produce, Your arguement is flawed in that you contribute Terri Schiavo's care to her parents. While they may have been present on a daily basis, the care of this woman has been provided by the staff at the hospice house. If the parents were taking care of her, why would the taxpayers be paying for a room, staff and therapy for Ms. Schiavo for all these years?

As I have contended all along, end of life issues are personal decisions. Why, therefore, would one expect the American taxpayer to bear the burden of private decisions? By removing emotion from the equation one may be able to see the whole picture, not just the subjective pieces.

I am sorry for your losses. Life can't have been easy since the loss of two loved ones in such a short period of time. I can see this is an emotionally charged issue for you. My sympathies.

All of our discussion here doesn't make a dab of difference in this case. Mr. Schiavo has the legal right to make this decision and he has.

Right Yvonne. The whole situation is sad for all involved. It is a personal decision and prolly would have been a private one had politicians not decided to use the Schindlers and Terri Schiavo to gain brownie points with some voting bloc, which, I think, is disgusting. I hope that this family can find some sort of peace.

Yvonne you are right. However I think you misunderstood or else I failed to clarify the total remarks on this young ladies parents. I believe I said or perhaps did not make clear and apolologize for failing to. If her parents wish to (provide for her care and )care for her the why not allow them. This would include the financial aspect also even should there be some catostrophic insurance available to aid in this. The husband would have nothing to loose in any case.
I suppose too Yvonne that I have seen so much death and I am sure that in your field that you have also that I hate to see anyone die. Yes, it does become an emotional issue and I wish we all could put those issues aside and allow this situation to resolve itself as I can see now that it will not be long in the coming. I can see no winners in this situation. Thanks for your kind remarks. I truely understand the decision that these folks are having to make.

May peace and blessing be upon all of them and may healing come to the wounded and broken hearted. This is included for all those who are posting all over the world in this matter who have become so wrapped in their own emotions that they have allowed anger and hate to prevail in their comments. May grace, mercy and forgiveness abound in all concerned.

"The husband would have nothing to loose in any case."

I respectfully disagree. I try to put myself in the place of Mr. Schiavo. If I were to think of walking away from my wife of 26 years with her in a situation I understood to be without hope, and believing that she would not have wanted that sort of existence, I couldn't do it. I don't care what money was offered to me.

I would do exactly as he is doing, going through all the hell that Randall Terry, Tom DeLay, Jeb Bush and Bill Frist could dish out to see that her desires were honored. I couldn't face myself otherwise.

If, on the other hand, my wife had told me that she would want me to stand by her for the rest of her life, as long as her heart could beat, and not allow anyone to pull the plug... that would be a tough row to hoe, but I'd give it my best shot.

Eric, Thanks for the civility. My contention was that since Mr. Shavio seeming has moved on and established his life in another direction what would he actually have to loose in allowing the parents to care for her. It would seem that there is no money left for him to make any financial gain from.

Personally I feel it is a shame that either of the parties have to be in this situation.

I saw no need for the politicians to become involved in the matter as they have. There were legal venues that the parents could have pursued to establish jurisdiction in the federal court system but it would have taken time and that is one thing they did not have.

Again the media has chosen to sensationalize this tragedy instead of allowing closure for all parties.

The American people and their thirst for entertainment and sensational excitement has only fed into the frenzy. It seems that the American people have reached a point of an almost orgasmic level in their search for this kind of news. We were subjected to months of the Peterson trial ,now the Jacko fiasco's and more.

Why, what made those things so important that they be continuously streamed across the screens of every cable TV news network. Have we lost any sence of how to entertain ourselves or do we only seek the ease of instant gratification.

As I previously posted I only wish peace and blessing upon all those involved so that healing may come to their broken and wounded hearts.

MrProduce, You and I can definitely agree on several points in your posts. The parents failure to take their daughter home and care for her 24/7 is one of the reasons I am skeptical about their motives. I don't know if they have attempted to gain custody legally or if they have attempted to mediate with Mr. Schiavo to come to some sort of agreement. But I am suspect because this melodrama has existed for over 11 of the 15 years. (According to sources, for the first four years Mr. Schiavo took his wife from one medical center to another to try to reverse the tragedy. These same sources said he used up most of the lawsuit money to pay for experimental procedures that insurance wouldn't cover. During this period he refused to believe all the "experts" who advised him his efforts were futile. At some point I guess he decided to listen to reason.)

I am not questioning the parents love for their daughter. I am just wary when I see what is going on in the media today with regards to Ms. Schiavo. It is my opinion they have been instrumental in creating some of the sensationalism. Anyway, I, like you, hope all this hate people are feeling will be washed from their hearts so healing can begin.

Eric,

Mr. Produce's scolding of you need do good. You recvert to calling Bush and others grandstanders on this. I saw Lanny Davis on TV giving a darn good argument for straving thsi womann to death.
And Eric she is not a cat or dog.

Excuse me Lanny Davis was for re-inserting the feeding tube. Davis as you may reacll is a big time democrat lawyer who represented Bill Clinton

What is the saying "one will reap what they sow"

MajorMajor says:
"And Eric she is not a cat or dog."

I hope you got my point correctly. We are kind to cats and dogs when they have no hope of recovering, and we put them to sleep. I agree that it's terrible to treat humans this way. If a human's suffering needs to be cut short, we should be at least as kind as we are to other species.

Yes Yvonne, we agree on this subject. I think you also would agree that unfortunately it has become a media circus to satisfy the needs of a too bored society, or perhaps a too lazy society who in their need for instant gratification will cater to anything sensational regardless of the circumstances.

Eric,"If a human's suffering needs to be cut short, we should be at least as kind as we are to other species."

No evidence Eric that the woman was suffering however it is now a moot point since she is certain to die unless a miracle should take place.
Also to even advocate putting humans out of their suffering as we do animals reflects a dangerous precedence toward euthanasia.

Mr produce says:
"Also to even advocate putting humans out of their suffering as we do animals reflects a dangerous precedence toward euthanasia."

I see. You know, with medical technology advancing to the stage it has, with the ability to actually force a body to function practically indefinitely, I think it's getting to be high time we started to consider re-thinking this idea that euthanasia is always a bad thing. Alzheimers patients get to the stage where they can no longer swallow. The choice is tube them up, or starve them to death. This happens every day in this country. You KNOW they suffer. Why is it so bloody horrible to think of ending that useless suffering?

Playing God? Anything we do to change the natural course of any disease is "playing God." All I'm saying is that we should re-think this whole attitude. It's only going to get worse as we go along.

Who's first Eric? The cripple, the blind, the deaf, the mentally challenged,the overweight,those with facial defomaties, the old, and what age is old, would I be on the list at 60, or would it be 70 or how about just a list of those who disagree with you? Where do you start Eric? Do you starve them, work them to death, shoot them, gas them, poison them? Who would be in charge of this, the doctors, the government, the military, a select board of wise men? You?
You know Hitler, Stalin and others thought that way too. Where in that group do stand Eric?

See? I merely state that we need to discuss the topic, and instead of trying to remain level headed and on-topic, you start building your straw men to attack with all your might.

I don't have the answers, only questions I would HOPE we could discuss in advance and come to some better place than we are in now. If you're afraid to make changes, you will be taking the risk of causing far more suffering, not only for people today, but further down the road.

I do not think like your "pantheon of evil." No more than you think like Torquemada. Get a grip. The problems are still there while you flail away at Stalin and Hitler.

One new development... Teri S.'s parents are hoping to give her a last communion. I hope 2 things about this. First, I hope they can do it, at least so far as the Catholic Church is agreeable. I know they had some clashes about that long ago. But if they can manage it, I'm sure it will help ease their minds.

Secondly, I hope it's not some forlorn trick to re-hydrate the woman. Honestly, I do not understand why Christians are so determined to keep a fellow Christian alive... Don't they want this woman to get into heaven ASAP? I'm not being facetious or intentionally cruel. I would like someone to explain this to me, an outsider.

Eric, I know where you are coming from. Euthanasia has always been looked upon as a mortal sin, therefore, conjuring up nothing but negative feelings and thoughts. Personally, if it is the desire of the patient in question, I can get past my own aversion to it long enough to see it is not my right to interfere.

I suppose, in a sense, the medical profession has engaged in a form of euthanasia for many years. It's just that we don't call it that; we call it comfort measures. (I addressed this in the letters blog but will repeat it here.)

In my entire career in the health care field I have never seen a terminally ill patient who was allowed to suffer while awaiting death. Once the family or patient makes the decision to refuse "heroic intervention" to sustain life artificially, ie, ventilator or feeding tube and are deemed a "do not resuscitate", comfort measures are initiated. In layman's terms that means we can give (usually) Morphine for pain and Ativan for anxiety. We continue to intervene in all treatable problems, ie, Tylenol for an elevated temp, antibiotics for an infection, oxygen for air hunger and intravenous fluids for hydration in addition to the pain meds and anti-anxiety meds. We strive to keep them and their families as comfortable as humanly possible. What we don't do is intervene if their heart stops or they quit breathing (as family and/or patient has requested).

Our goal, in the medical profession, is to aleviate pain and suffering, not cause more. You (meaning anyone) may call it anything you want to. As I stated before I prefer to call it compassion.

You KNOW they suffer. Why is it so bloody horrible to think of ending that useless suffering?

To rationalize euthanasia in any manner is simply dangerous Eric and that was my point previously. It is not and atempt to build strawmen, which seems to be favorite of your lack of an answer to one's questions, but to ask the question who is first, who decides. The cripple person may be suffering, does someone decide that should not suffer and kill them. An old person may be suffering, who decides that they are tired and suffering and should be put out of their misery. A person who is mentally challenged may suffer not only in body but in mind. Who is to decide if they should die because they suffer. How much suffering is too much suffering and therefore calls for an ending of that suffering , and who decides. I have suffered pain so intense that those around me thought I would die or would wish too. But who should have decided that my suffering was too much and that I should have died.(thankfully no one had that power)
When we get into this frame of mind that we can decide who should suffer and decide how much is enough and when they should die we have lost our humanity and have lowered the level of those suffering to a level below human.

My question still stands, Who decides?

I offered up Hitler and Stalin, who in their reach for glory and control, decided that they had the power to decide who would live and who would die. Hitlers idea was that if they were not perfect, ie somehow deformed, handicapped either physically or mentally then they were not part of his super race and that they should die. The old, he imagined were tired and worn out therefore suffering and they must go. Stalin's thoughts were along those lines however even more skewered.

I still ask, who decideds? Me, you, Yvonne, the government, the local church, a committee, who?

mr produce, if your last post is your version of an attempt at civil discourse, I'd hate to see you when you slip into gratuitous insults.

I give my opinion that starving a patient to death is terrible, and that a more humane method should be available, and suddenly, I'm the equivalent of a power-hungry dictator who wants to control the world and kill millions?

I ask that people discuss changing ethical prejudices and you expect me to provide all the answers? Sorry, but it really doesn't look to me like you are interested in rational discussion in this area. Take care.

Eric says: I'm the equivalent of a power-hungry dictator who wants to control the world and kill millions?

No where do I put you in equilivant in my last post. I stated what these people did.The remainder of the post is in the plural WE. If you take it to be equated with them then that's your problem. "I offered up Hitler and Stalin, who in their reach for glory and control, decided that they had the power to decide who would live and who would die."

I said: "When we get into this frame of mind that we can decide who should suffer and decide how much is enough and when they should die we have lost our humanity and have lowered the level of those suffering to a level below human"

I asked: I only once again asked the question. Who decides?

What is uncivil about that?

Eric said: You KNOW they suffer. Why is it so bloody horrible to think of ending that useless suffering

That is certainly not saying a more humane way should be available.

Hi, Yvonne. Sorry I ignored you while going in circles with mr produce....

"I suppose, in a sense, the medical profession has engaged in a form of euthanasia for many years. It's just that we don't call it that; we call it comfort measures."

When my mother died last year, her last week of life was hard to deal with. I was out of the loop on medical decision making, but when the doctors moved her to a hospice and started palliative care, I got the message that there was no hope. Too bad my Dad was too sick to follow the events properly... he was totally surprised when we told him the bad news.

But I take comfort in knowing that Mom was not suffering during her last hours. So "comfort measures" were effective in her case. My only concern is are there many cases, like Schiavo's, where the decision to withdraw artificial support results in death after up to 2 weeks? If so, that period is a terrible thing to go through.

That was why I brought up the subject of euthanasia. Certain people decided that to say such a thing is thinking like "Hitler and Stalin." There's just no talking with people like that.

Yvonne, your statement: "Once the family or patient makes the decision to refuse "heroic intervention" to sustain life artificially, ie, ventilator or feeding tube and are deemed a "do not resuscitate", comfort measures are initiated."

That is the authority that should be allowed to make that life and death decision. Not some group of people who feel that because people are living longer and that medicine has ways to extend life we should be able to call the shot on when that time comes to end the life because the patient is suffering. To allow the courts or the government to get involved in this decision would certainly be a dangerous situation. When laws are passed in this regard , and I don't give a rats butt if it is for or against they are wrong. The govenment has no business making laws in this regard.
Yes, Yvonne, patients with cancer(and other diseases) suffer and doctors and especially nurses (I praise nurses)do their best to give comfort to them in their last days or hours. Giving drugs to bring comfort is not what I consider to be euthanasia. It does not violate the medical oath of "do no harm". To allow the family or the patient the choise to extend by artifical means or to deny use of such is not euthanasia. I am thankful each day that nursing staff and doctors allow patients and family to make these decisions. I would be in great discomfort if someone other than the family or individual was allowed to make the decision. That is the crux of my argument against blanket euthanasia.
To others who have had to walk this path, I am sorry you had to walk that path for I too had to walk it not once but twice(mother & wife) and yes it is extremely painful and heart rendering. I think many of us reaching the middle age are faced with those decisions or will be facing them. That is why I strongly suggest that everyone make their wishes known, not only verbally but in writing. With that done there would be no fiacos such as is going on in Flordia now.

My greatest concern regarding this case is the precedence it sets for the future. As our nation's population continues to increase and our economy and resources wane, will we reach a point where those no longer useful or contributing to society are simply eliminated? News reports today saying that Terri Shiavo is resting comfortably in a room filled with flowers, with a stuffed animal under her arm, and music playing softly brings back memories of a sci-fi movie released in the 1970's called "Soylent Green." In this movie (if I remember correctly), the lives of the elderly and useless were ended, by government mandate so as to eliminate their drain on society, as they sat in a beautiful room with music playing. The only difference, they were not starved to death but rather put to sleep in a humane manner.

Whether or not Terri Shiavo is aware of her surroundings or feels pain will never be known for certain, just as we will never know for certain what her wishes would have been. Yet, I can't imagine she would have wished to have her life ended using the method in place now. I can't help but wonder if "Soylent Green" may soon become a reality.