The Schiavo issue

[Prudence]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

But this all started well before he moved on. It should have been done then and there. Next of kin (spouse) should have had the right to make the decission. He was denied that right and has been fighting ever since. So just because his life circumstances have changed due to the absurb amount of time, he should still have that right.

I think this is the key. These aren't easy decisions. And different people may have conflicting views on what should happen. Plug the plug or no? Donate organs or no? Continue extraordinary measures or no?

They're terrible, gut-wrenching decisions. Medical science is a double-edged sword -- on the one hand, medicine gives wonderful hopes of life and recovery that even a hundred years ago could never have been imagined. On the other hand, it requires mere mortals, without the gift of foresight, to make irreversable decisions on whether a particular individual is likely to ever recover. What a horrible scale to balance -- the financial and emotional cost to the living of sustaining the unknowing body v. the terrible crushing guilt that maybe someday they'll wake up.

I sincerely hope that's a decision I will never have to make.

The concept of next of kin is intended to facilitate this decision-making process, as much as is possible, by outlining who has responsibility for that ultimate decision. In some more fortunate cases, the living left behind are in agreement over the proper course of action. In some cases, there are disagreements that are quite literally matters of life and death.

But the court system is not equipped to handle these on a case by case basis. And inevitably there will be situations where good, rational people will hold differing opinions on the proper course of action. And unless there's some obvious, underlying issue, such as a ginormous inheritance, there has to be a system that determines who "wins" in the win-less situation.

"Next of Kin" is supposed to resolve these differences by determining whose voice will speak for the patient. And the first candidate is spouse, if one exists and is competent to make the decision. It is the nature of human frailty that there will be some philanderking jerks or back-stabbing hos who will see an opportunity for enormous personal gain and make what any rational person would see is the wrong decision. Ideally the court system is available to help in these extreme situations.

The instant case appears to be an example of "what happens when this all goes horribly wrong." It should not drag on this long. The husband gets to say yay or nay. We could speculate all day whether or not she feels pain, whether or not she's aware, whether or not she has any quality of life, whether or not she'll ever recover. And the truth is that we don't know. No one knows. We might have our suspicions, but they are, at best, theories.

It's horrible to watch your last hope be extinguished. Her eyes open; it seems like she could snap out of it at any moment. How awful it must be for the parents to watch what they see as marvelous potential wither away. But absent any compelling evidence for future brain activity, it's the husband's decision to make. And barring any compelling evidence to the contrary, we have to assume he's doing what he believes is in her best interest, regardless of what we might think of him or his decision.

[Gemini Cricket]

Originally Posted by BarTopDancer

They removed her tube

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...maged_woman_69

Yes, but does this just mean someone else can rule that it must go back in?

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

Yes, but does this just mean someone else can rule that it must go back in?

I think so. In fact, if I recall correctly, it once before happened to this same poor woman. I think she had it removed for 7 days or so about 1.5 years ago, and another court ruled it must be reinserted.

[Claire]

I was going to say yes, and that it's been taken out twice before.....I've been following this since college, but sometimes the details are hazy.

It's been almost fifteen years since her heart attack. I'm pretty sure it happened in 1990.

[Not Afraid]

You know, my Father chose when his life would end and I had upmost respect for his decision - although the grief was unbearable. He decided his life was at it's end. The quality of his life was not there any longer and he didn't want to live like that.

Why can't people see how important quality of life issues are? It's baffling to me.

[Ghoulish Delight]

It has been removed twice, and it's been 16 years since the heart attack.

[Gemini Cricket]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I am so sorry to hear that. One was bad enough, but two at a time would be unfathomable.

They seem to have good periods and bad periods. They can go for months without symptoms and then all of a sudden they feel cruddy.
My sister gets the skin rashes symptoms, my mom gets the fatigue. My mom's has been in remission for a couple of years but my sister's seems always present some how. I'm afraid I don't know much about their issues regarding lupus because they don't like to talk about it outside of the Dr's office.

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I think so. In fact, if I recall correctly, it once before happened to this same poor woman. I think she had it removed for 7 days or so about 1.5 years ago, and another court ruled it must be reinserted.

Ugh. That just made my stomach queasy. I feel sorry for Ms. Schiavo.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Not Afraid

Why can't people see how important quality of life issues are? It's baffling to me.

I think that term is too vague. It is undefinable person to person. I think in general, though, people do understand it. What is hard for me to understand in this case is why it is being assumed, by the word of one man, that she would not want to stay alive. And the word of that one man being permitted to starve her to death.

I have thought about the post of Scrooge in regards to if it is different than pulling the plug on the respirator, and if it is simply the length of time that it takes, and in reality it is no different issue. Technically I suppose no, but the length does make a difference.

There is a debate on the death penalty. We consider it inhumane to have hangings anymore and it's pretty much all lethal injection. Why? Why not starve someone on death row instead of a quick, painless injection? I would guess it is because it is inhumane.

So the argument came up that this is the only way to do it with laws as they are. So since the only way to end her life is horrid that's what will be done? That doesn't seem like the proper course of action.

She is not brain dead. She is not terminal. I would suspect that I wouldn't want to live that way, but not because of me - because I wouldn't want my children to have to wtch me like that after watching my own mom die a slow and painful death. Tough on a kid.

I can ramble on without saying much. I'm not even sure where I'm going with the post. It isn't her life or death that is causing me such angst. It is the method. It is the thought of her parents being forced to endure this process, wanting to simply care for their offspring and being told it is out of their hands and they must submit to her dieing of starvation (or dehydration, I suppose). As a parent it almost makes me physically ill.

As with my anger in earlier posts, anyone who could order that should just take a gun and go do it himself. For this to be permitted by law is sickening to me.

[Prudence]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I can ramble on without saying much. I'm not even sure where I'm going with the post. It isn't her life or death that is causing me such angst. It is the method. It is the thought of her parents being forced to endure this process, wanting to simply care for their offspring and being told it is out of their hands and they must submit to her dieing of starvation (or dehydration, I suppose). As a parent it almost makes me physically ill.

Query:

What if the positions were reversed? What if the parents had spent umpteen years begging for the doctors to release their daughter from torment and let her soul be at rest. And what if it were the husband who was convinced she was responsive and refused, ever hopeful of recovery?

I'm trying to pinpoint which part of the issue concerns you the most so I can better understand your position. I know that you're concerned about multiple aspects, but if you had to pick what disturbs you most, is it the nature of the death? Or is it that you feel the parents are more qualified in this case to judge her wishes?

[wendybeth]

Prudence, I can't answer for Scaeagles, but I can for myself. I distrust Mr. Schiavo, and I am sickened by this whole circus. If her parents want to care for her, they should be allowed to. I know if it were my daughter, I would feel the same way. He has turned away from her- he has moved on and established a new family. There's a saying- where there is life, there is hope, and I think her parents have hope for her. The docs are not in agreement regarding her state of being- one side says one thing, the other days something else. I know a lot of special needs kids that have the same 'quality' of life that Mrs. Schiavo has, yet there is no question that they be allowed- even encouraged- to live. If someone proposed to do to them what Mr. Schiavo wants done to his wife, the public would be up in arms. Mrs. Schiavo, vegatative state or not, seems to have a very strong will to live. All she requires is a feeding tube, and if her parents want to to that for her, what is the problem? She was their child long before she married, and her husband turned away from his marriage long ago.