Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Pro-life politicians' anti-quality sell-out

  1. Mar 17, 2005 #1
    You may know of the man in Florida who wishes to remove his comatose wife's feeding tube. Her parents and conservative Congressmen want the tube to remain - since life is sacred, or so the argument goes. Are these politicians willing to bankroll the quality of her life, and that of the hundreds of thousands like her? My guess is they are content to let most like her lie for months or years in a Medicaid bed with substandard nursing "care," in filth and near constant anguish, having hardly a visitor.

    Likewise, pro-lifers came to the conundrum that the less money welfare mothers got, the greater their incidence of abortion or child abuse. What's a conservative to do?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 17, 2005 #2

    SOS2008

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    This really is the question in regard to the earlier thread entitled “Terri Shiavo,” the name of the woman in question. It is indeed interesting that life is so precious that it must be protected even if inhumane. We will put a poor animal out of it’s misery in kindness, but won’t allow individual’s to make this choice for themselves. As stated in the other thread, I wonder how many of these pro-life people who are against removal of life support for terminal patients, are also in favor of capital punishment—very inconsistent people (i.e. hypocritical).

    In addition, I have always maintained that the condition of women in our society must be addressed in relation to abortion, or birth control for that matter. Aside from the welfare scenario, women can lose their jobs for taking maternity leave, or at least lose income, etc., etc., etc. But who am I to question the devises of the self-righteous—they know best and therefore can dictate what civil liberties everyone can or cannot have…
     
  4. Mar 17, 2005 #3

    Kerrie

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    What I find interesting here is that the parents have as much of a right to her fate as her legal spouse. When you marry, your spouse (generally speaking) has the power to make these decisions for you, because we assume that the husband and wife know each other's wishes as adults. I have to agree though with the husband for two reasons. A) He's her spouse, and he probably knows her best as an adult. B) There is no hope for her recovery to any degree and only because of medical technology is she alive.

    The parents of course will want her to remain alive. She's their child. I guess I might have the same feelings if it were my child, however I would hope that I could have the capacity after so many years of being on this life support that I could just let her go.
     
  5. Mar 17, 2005 #4

    SOS2008

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Agreed that this is the way it should be. It was mentioned in the earlier thread that Jeb Bush has stepped in on behalf of the parents as Governor--otherwise the wishes of the husband and decisions of judges would have been the final word on it.

    The husband loves her more than the parent's who are being selfish.
     
  6. Mar 17, 2005 #5

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I think that they may all love her equally, but the parents are blinded by their love of their child. As I mentioned previously, as a parent, I can't say how I would react if this were me and my child.

    It has been 15 years though. The last intervention in 2003 was to allow the parents to have more medical tests done to see if newer medical technology would help or if there were really any signs of improvement.

    Two years have passed and there has been no improvement, which is why it has been ruled again to let her die.
     
  7. Mar 18, 2005 #6
    You're free to revel in your suspicions. I'm free to disregard them as merely that, suspicions.

    For one, request you provide evidence of a increased incidence of abortion in the target population.

    rev Prez
     
  8. Mar 18, 2005 #7
    Rev Prez
    I recall the state involved to be New Jersey. It was the conservative side that noticed this trend in the first place. Although I may disagree with them, I do respect those conservatives who have a consistent ethical stance, not one that sways in the fiscal breeze.

    Rev Prez
    Not just suspicions. I volunteer at a nursing home 2 and 1/2 hours a week, where the disgruntled nurses are worked to the bone. Have you ever bothered to step inside the door to help strangers, or are you willing to wait until you yourself are institutionalized?
     
  9. Mar 18, 2005 #8

    SOS2008

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    This is a matter of individual rights--the right of the patient is first in my mind. If I were to be terminally ill and suffering (physically and/or mentally), I want the right to be allowed to die according to nature and not kept alive with artificial medical technology. Who is imposing their world view on whom?

    This sounds more like Soylent Green fiction to me.
     
  10. Mar 18, 2005 #9

    brewnog

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    And about bloody time too.

    I could think of nothing worse than being in such a state where I was incapable of ending my own life, voluntarily. I'd hope that my family would pull the tubes on me, and I'd like to think that I'd be able to do the same for them.

    Edit: And if it wasn't my family making the decision, I'd be happy for a couple of doctors to agree to pull the plug too.
     
  11. Mar 19, 2005 #10

    FredGarvin

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Huh...That's funny. Here it was Jeb Bush's actions of ramrodding Terri's Law through his state's legislature that was in the end deemed unconstitutional. It appears to me that the state of Florida was the one overriding the constitution and imposing their views.


    Let's see a complete reference on that. I want to see what doctor in his right mind would do a late term for a cleft lip.

    Terri has been in her state for how long? 15 plus years. 15 years. That really looks like people gave up quickly on that case.


    http://www.freep.com/news/nw/schiavo19e_20050319.htm

    It's statements like that, by professionals, under oath that make me feel it's more for the parents' interests to keep Terri "alive" than for Terri herself. Not to mention the very strong possibility that, if she had any mental facilities left, she would probably have gone completely insane by now.


    As for what Kitty posted, I think these are two completely different topics. If he is guilty of abusing her, then they should be investigating him and throw his ass in the slammer and prosecute him to the fullest extent possible (including the murder of his wife). That, however, has nothing to do with letting Terri go.

    If this story has taught me anything, it's that no matter how old you are, you'd better have a living will ready and available.
     
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2005
  12. Mar 19, 2005 #11

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I wish folks posting specifically in regard to the Terri Schiavo case would keep it in the thread already started on that topic. I have posted in there information on distinctions between vegetative states, persistent vegetative states, locked-in syndrome, coma and brain death. They are not all synonymous, and in this thread, many are being used interchangeably. Someone can be in a vegetative state and recover, but, once the condition becomes prolonged enough to be classified as a persistent vegetative state, as it has in the Terri Schiavo case, the chances for recovery greatly reduced, and the longer they are in that state, the lower the likelihood of any recovery.

    Someone posted an CT scan image in the biology forum that they claimed was from evidence presented in the Terri Schiavo case. I don't know if that is true or not, but the CT scan presented shows a very severe hydrocephalic condition (brain space is occupied by a large volume of cerebrospinal fluid instead of brain tissue).

    The Early Show interviewed Terri's husband and parents this morning. Her husband was very subdued and choked back tears several times while discussing her condition. He really did come across as loving her. When asked why he didn't just allow her parents to care for her and keep the feeding tube in, his answer was that it was her wish not to be kept alive under these types of conditions and it is the last thing he can do for her to honor her wishes. In contrast, her parents came off much cooler, and they also interviewer her brother, who seemed completely unfeeling...I was shocked by his almost cheerful demeanor during the interview! I thought they'd all be distraught for different reasons. It was almost like her brother has gotten so caught up in the thrill of the court battles, that he has forgotten his sister is the reason for it.

    I'm personally appalled that Congress is getting involved in this. The only way I would want to see them get involved would be to pass legislation making euthanasia legal in at least limited circumstances. I really do wish it was legally allowed to just administer a lethal injection rather than leaving her to die slowly, just in case she does have any sense of feeling left.

    Another issue is that there is variation across states in how well they uphold living wills if challenged by family members. For example, let's say someone isn't married yet, but is engaged, so they've named their fiance as their "guardian" in a living will, and something happens and their parents challenge that guardian status, AFAIK, states aren't all consistent in whether they will uphold the guardian appointed in the living will or the default guardian who would be appointed by the state if there was no living will.
     
  13. Mar 19, 2005 #12

    Kerrie

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    Moonbear, you are right. This thread has gone off topic. If I can figure it out, I will try to merge the posts referring to Terry to that thread.
     
  14. Mar 19, 2005 #13

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Loren was hoping to discuss the political aspects of the case, but too many keep straying off that topic. I've looked at splitting posts and merging them back to the Terri thread, but then it leaves holes in the conversation.

    I may just merge the two.
     
  15. Mar 19, 2005 #14
    I'm all for merging the threads, if that can be done neatly. Thanks for the support, mentors.
     
  16. Mar 19, 2005 #15

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Thanks Loren, I would like the political/legal aspect to continue to be discussed since this is an important topic. I'm afraid it would get lost in the other thread.

    If I could actually read the entire post that I'm wanting to split, it would be easier to achieve, in that mode all I can read is the first sentence of the post and try to recall what the entire post said. :bugeye:

    If weird things start to happen, you know I'm working on it. :wink:
     
  17. Mar 19, 2005 #16
    I could have sworn I posted in this thread. I'm sorry if anything I might have said cause anyone so much offense that Evo had to delete it...my apologies...:frown:.
     
  18. Mar 20, 2005 #17

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Evo moved some of the replies into the Terri Schiavo thread; they were more appropriate there. Nothing was so offensive as to be deleted (you'd have been told if it was).
     
  19. Mar 20, 2005 #18
    Ok, good to know. Yeah I PMed Evo asking about it. Thanks Moonbear. Is she going to try to merge these threads because they overlap a bit too much to be separet.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Pro-life politicians' anti-quality sell-out
  1. Lying politicians (Replies: 112)

  2. Outsider politicians (Replies: 0)

Loading...