Should the Feeding Tube be Removed? Share Your Vote and Reasoning.

[quantumdude]

I would have voted, "Absolutely not, under any circumstances", but I had to settle for a simple "no".

You can put a dog to sleep and you can gas a mass murderer, but an innocent person has to be starved and dehydrated to be put to rest. In the threads that I see across the internet the expression "let her die with dignity" is mentioned a lot, but I think that if there is any TV footage of Terri Schiavo at the end, it will be more than apparent that this is just about the most undignified way a person can exit life. I think that it's a disgrace that it is legal for anyone to die this way.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm not going to start an argument, but just out of curiosity, Tom, do you favor euthenasia or just keeping her on the feeding tube?

 

[Evo]

I think euthanasia should be legalized in a case where it has been decided to remove a patient from life support. In this case it's a feeding tube. In other cases a machine is breathing for the patient, remove the machine that's breathing for them, they suffocate. A more violent death than starvation. As it has been pointed out, in starvation there is a euphoric state caused by food deprivation, in the remote possibility that one in the condition Terri is in could even feel it.

I believe that a person should have the right to die in cases such as this. I think it's horrible that euthanasia is not allowed. How can people object to legalizing euthanasia for these cases?

 

[quantumdude]

I'm not going to start an argument, but just out of curiosity, Tom, do you favor euthenasia or just keeping her on the feeding tube?

I would support euthanasia in general. I do not claim to know whether it is appropriate for Terri Schiavo.

 

[BobG]

I voted "yes" for the same reason Tom voted "no".

The entire last week has to be about the most undignified way a person could possibly die.

You have two Terri Schiavos: the one before her heart attack and the current version. Which image do you think she would most identify with? Which do you think she'd like to be the memory left with her loved ones? She's lucky she has no conciousness otherwise the national coverage over the last week would be enough to make her want to die for sure.

At least, with the legal proceedings seemingly nearing an end and with Schiavo's life also seemingly near an end, the news networks seem to be showing a little more sensitivity and the balance of before pictures is starting to catch up with the after pictures.

Actually, there's no way to know what the 'right' thing to do as an outside observer. If I'm going to have an opinion one way or the other, it's going to be about the people making the decision, not about Terri Schiavo, whom I don't even know. Either I believe that most judges are competent and try to do the best that they can or I believe that most judges are motivated by evil and corruption. The former is far more likely. All of the judges involved in this have come to the same conclusion, so I have to believe their decision is the closest to the 'right' decision that we're going to get to.

To be perfectly honest, the Schindlers and Michael Schiavo play very little part in my opinion. Being in the midst of a feud that both desparately want to win, very little publicly said by either side should carry too much weight.

 

[Danger]

I think that it's a disgrace that it is legal for anyone to die this way.

The main thing that you and a few other people are either overlooking or ignoring is that for all intents and purposes she is already dead. Her dignity isn't even an issue; you have to be aware to possesses any.

 

[meteor]

for all intents and purposes she is already dead

How do you know that? According to Barbara Weller, she attempted to say: "I want to live". Please, don't read only biased informations
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/mar/05032309.htm

I'm sorry if my attitude offends anyone, but I don't believe in the afterlife, so i think that all the efforts for saving a human life should be carried the further possible

 

[faust9]

How do you know that? According to Barbara Weller, she attempted to say: "I want to live". Please, don't read only biased informations
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/mar/05032309.htm

I'm sorry if my attitude offends anyone, but I don't believe in the afterlife, so i think that all the efforts for saving a human life should be carried the further possible

No, according to Ms Weller she said Ahhhhhh Waaaaaa which Ms Weller took for "I want to live." Maybe she wanted to say(now granted the part of her brain with the ability to form speech is gone)"I want to go with dignity" or "I want the tube removed" or anyone of a number of things. The point is she doesn't have the portion of the brain needed to form a thought, and any sound she makes is seen as her wanting to live by the Schindlers. The Schindlers took Ahhh Waaa for what they needed it to be to placate their own pain.

It's odd that the Schindlers waited this long to bring this evidence to light though isn't it?(rhetorical question BTW)

 

[quantumdude]

for all intents and purposes she is already dead.

There is simply no way of knowing if what you say is true. As long as that is the case, I am against any course of action that is irreversible, as this one is.

 

[Danger]

I'm sorry if my attitude offends anyone, but I don't believe in the afterlife, so i think that all the efforts for saving a human life should be carried the further possible

I don't either, which also means that I don't believe in any consciousness outside of the part of her brain that isn't there.
I don't have time to look that that link now, but I promise that I will once things slow down here.

 

[Danger]

Okay, everybody just disappeared at once. What happened? Some kind of signal that I don't know about, or just coincidence?
Anyhow, I had time to check out that link. Those are bloody raving bible-thumping right-wing lobbyists! I thought that at least you had something of a scientific nature to offer. The following quote "But the definition of 'persistent vegetative state' has been disputed by bioethicists for years. Some doctors believe that there is no such condition." is deliberately misleading. That's like PETA claiming to be ecologists. No medical doctor would agree. They're talking about their in-house Doctors of Divinity, store front psychoanalysts with a right tilt, a few people who went to one of those colleges where you can get a PhD. in macrame, and others of their ilk. And any fruitcake can call himself a 'bioethicist'. Anyone who has ever seriously studied neurology would be outraged to be associated with such statements.

 

[fifiki]

The main thing that you and a few other people are either overlooking or ignoring is that for all intents and purposes she is already dead. Her dignity isn't even an issue; you have to be aware to possesses any.

I'm looking at "her dignity" as her views of what dying with dignity means before the tragedy occured. So to me it does become an issue.

 

[Danger]

I'm looking at "her dignity" as her views of what dying with dignity means before the tragedy occured. So to me it does become an issue.

In that context, I agree with you, but that dignity exists in the minds of those still here, not Terri herself. I might not be expressing myself properly, but I'm pretty sure we're on the same side.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Dying of starvation and dhydration seems rough, just give me a lethal injection at that point. I certainly wouldn't want to live on a feeding tube for 15+ years.

 

[Danger]

Dying of starvation and dhydration seems rough, just give me a lethal injection at that point. I certainly wouldn't want to live on a feeding tube for 15+ years.

She doesn't know that she's alive, and feels no discomfort (at least on a conscious level). It is a ridiculous waste of resources, though.

 

[1123581321]

She doesn't know that she's alive, and feels no discomfort (at least on a conscious level). It is a ridiculous waste of resources, though.

that's bs. she is not in a vegetated state, she has been fed (as in oraly) by nurses (by the way, they were all fired for 'giving terri rehab'). And, why the rush? re-insert it until it is clear that she cannot be helped (which some MDs think she can), then if we are absolutely sure that that is what she wanted (remember, there is no written will) and then murder her. and do it fast, not slowly and painfully. would you like to be starved to death?

just some arguement, no hard feelings

Fibonacci

 

[Moonbear]

that's bs. she is not in a vegetated state, she has been fed (as in oraly) by nurses (by the way, they were all fired for 'giving terri rehab'). And, why the rush? re-insert it until it is clear that she cannot be helped (which some MDs think she can), then if we are absolutely sure that that is what she wanted (remember, there is no written will) and then murder her. and do it fast, not slowly and painfully. would you like to be starved to death?

just some arguement, no hard feelings

Fibonacci

I don't know what sources you're getting your information from, but it is inaccurate. If she could be fed orally, she would not have been given a feeding tube in the first place, nor would removing the feeding tube make any difference. No credible M.D.s think she can be helped. And what rush? She's had 15 years to show signs of recovery, and it has not happened; that's hardly rushing the issue. She IS in a persistent vegetative state. Numerous neurologists have examined her and confirmed this. See my post #6 in the Terri Schiavo thread for a definition of that state, as it is clear very few seem to understand just what that means in medical terms.

Also, Adrenaline has posted some information in that thread as well regarding starvation, and that the ketosis leads to the body's natural release of painkillers in someone who still retains any sensation (there are people who go on long-term hunger strikes or fasts voluntarily and who can report back on that experience).

Yes, I would prefer something along the lines of a lethal injection to bring this to a swifter end, but without that being an option (Congress hasn't rushed to session to legalize euthanasia yet), while my own wishes are not relevant to this case, yes, I would prefer to starve to death over being kept alive indefinitely in a vegetative state.

 

[Danger]

just some arguement, no hard feelings

Of course none. Although I treat things like this with cold logic, it's an emotionally-charged issue for more people than not. I don't expect overly formal debating. (My old man was an agnostic Unitarian-Universalist preacher, who's best friends were the neighbouring United Church preacher and the local Anglican priest. He and the priest scrapped like bulldogs over theology. I conduct my life according to the priest's dying words to dad in the hospital: "I'd rather argue with an intelligent man than have a fool agree with me.")
I think that perhaps the basis of our disagreement lies in our personal definition of being 'alive'. Here in Canada, and in my own opinion, brain-death is the operative factor. That's already been established in Terri's case. If she were up here, she would already be legally dead and there would be no room for appeal.

 

[Moonbear]

I think that perhaps the basis of our disagreement lies in our personal definition of being 'alive'. Here in Canada, and in my own opinion, brain-death is the operative factor. That's already been established in Terri's case. If she were up here, she would already be legally dead and there would be no room for appeal.

She's not brain dead. Brain death is defined by brainstem activity, which she still has. That is why she can open her eyes, move, and has most of her reflexes intact, breathes and has normal cardiac function. If she was truly brain dead, that would define death, period. A persistent vegetative state means she has no function of her brain cortex, the area of the brain that is used for complex functions, such as thinking, motivation, learning, language, sensory perception (vision, hearing, tactile, taste, smell), etc.

This is where so many misperceptions are arising when people see video of her moving or blinking. A persistent vegetative state is not synonymous with brain death or coma, although I've seen a lot of people using them all interchangeably. They are not interchangeable terms. Different terms refer to different parts of the brain being damaged and the resultant levels of activity or consciousness that can be expected. A peristent vegetative state also is distinguished by duration. If someone is only affected for a short time, they are in a vegetative state. When that condition persists beyond a year, then it is termed a persistent vegetative state (the actual time frame depends somewhat on the initial cause of the condition because of the different time frames for which recovery might occur based on the cause).

 

[Danger]

She's not brain dead. Brain death is defined by brainstem activity, which she still has.

I stand corrected. (Maybe I should have finished school after all...) Whatever definition covers it, the fact remains that the condition she is in would make her legally dead up here. My apologies for the misuse of terminology.

 

[hypatia]

Note...this poll echos polls taken nation wide..the results are about the same.

 

[Danger]

Note...this poll echos polls taken nation wide..the results are about the same.

But, I am sure, far more articulate and thought-out.

 

[Grace]

Originally posted by Evo:
I think euthanasia should be legalized in a case where it has been decided to remove a patient from life support. In this case it's a feeding tube. In other cases a machine is breathing for the patient, remove the machine that's breathing for them, they suffocate. A more violent death than starvation. As it has been pointed out, in starvation there is a euphoric state caused by food deprivation, in the remote possibility that one in the condition Terri is in could even feel it.

I believe that a person should have the right to die in cases such as this. I think it's horrible that euthanasia is not allowed. How can people object to legalizing euthanasia for these cases?

Last time I checked, Youth in Asia is fround upon, especially in China...

 

[Danger]

Last time I checked, Youth in Asia is fround upon, especially in China...

Went a long way for that one, didn't you?

 

[Grace]

Evo,

Euthanasia? Well, I'm not so sure about this concept. But, with the growing age of the American population and the almost daily advances in medical technology to keep terminally ill patients alive, there will be much debate over this topic in the future.

This is a rather good educational site I recently ran across which I thought provided good some information on end of life decisions which are being made by American families on a daily basis and give current state by state legislation regarding these issues.

http://www.caregiver.org/caregiver/jsp/content_node.jsp?nodeid=399

 

[Monique]

I think euthanasia should be legalized in a case where it has been decided to remove a patient from life support. In this case it's a feeding tube. In other cases a machine is breathing for the patient, remove the machine that's breathing for them, they suffocate. A more violent death than starvation. As it has been pointed out, in starvation there is a euphoric state caused by food deprivation, in the remote possibility that one in the condition Terri is in could even feel it.

I believe that a person should have the right to die in cases such as this. I think it's horrible that euthanasia is not allowed. How can people object to legalizing euthanasia for these cases?

The Netherlands was the first country to legalize euthanasia in extreme cases.

the euthanasia bill that was passed in 2001 and took effect in 2002, making the Netherlands the first country to legalize a practice it says is common but unstated in most Western countries.

Since then, Belgium has also legalized euthanasia, while in France, legislation to allow doctor-assisted suicide is currently under debate. In the United States, the state of Oregon is alone in allowing physician-assisted suicide, but its law is under constant challenge.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4901282,00.html

Ofcourse all actions should be backed by a board of doctors and an ethics commission.