• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

right to life - right to die

Motokid

Motokid

New Member
Sorry if this one is too hot, but it's been in the news so much, and on the talk radio discussions of many conservative shows....

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,148438,00.html

I find it compelling to say the least when reading about this case. On one hand I can understand where the parents are coming from, but on the other I've put dogs down long before they "suffered" this much. Although it's hard for me to judge if she's suffering.

If nothing else it stresses the need for very clear, very legal, living wills, and power of attorneys......
 
wow, pretty dangerous subject!! anyway, i think you should let people die if they want it, if not you should try everthing to keep them alive!! you also should make sure if the person itself wants to die, or just his/her relatives want that he/she dies!!
 
Yeah, I'm on pins and needles about this one, but I think most here are capable of the discussion.

The problem here is the women never put anything in writting. It's a he said she said arguement between her husband and her parents.
 
This is such a heart-wrenching issue.

My personal opinion is that they should let her live. Why? For these reasons:

1. Her "husband" hasn't had anything to do with her since she became a vegetable. He moved on with his life, found another woman, and I believe they have children now.

2. Her parents and family have been taking care of her for years. They love her and do not want her to die. They are willing to take care of her, and have done so with grace under unnecessary stress and heartache.

3. The only discussed manner to let her die would be to starve her to death. That would be outright cruel and evil. Where are the human rights people? What about the ACLU? They are curiously silent when it comes to this issue.

I think the "husband" is either being extremely selfish, or downright mean. He has been able to continue living with a quality of life that Terri will never, ever have again. I can't imagine someone having such a lack of decency and respect for human life. But then again, in a country where we have murdered millions of unborn children without batting an eyelash, why are we surprised with this case?
 
EEEEKKKK. Steering away from the one issue, and back towards this one specifically, suppose the conversation actually did happen between the husband and the wife. Suppose she did say to never let her live in that fashion and he's just trying to keep his word.

Based on his apparent desire to move on with his life this is a stretch, but then again this has been going on for 15 years. Maybe he stuck by her side for longer than your post appears. I don't know those details.

I do know I would never want to put my family through what her family is going through.

Sometimes saving a life "at all costs" is a very costly thing to do.
 
It's just very important to talk to your family about these things and write your wishes down somewhere. Everybody can have bad luck and end up like a vegetable. It's better to avoid problems for your family and you, by stating your wishes before anything happens. But of course everyone thinks, 'I don't get in that kind of trouble'.

In this case nobody knows exactly what the woman wants. Tough one...
 
"In this case nobody knows exactly what the woman wants. Tough one..."

And even tougher is that nobody knows if she's capable of wanting anything anymore, or if she'll ever be able to want anything anymore.

How is this subject looked upon in countries other than America? Would there be a conflict like this in your home country?

It's amazing that this all came about because of complications from an eating disorder.
 
Motokid said:
How is this subject looked upon in countries other than America? Would there be a conflict like this in your home country?
Click to expand...
Here in Holland a lot is possible and a lot is allowed. But I think a story like this would be a difficult one here too.

There has been some outrage about 'killing' little baby's who didn't have a chance to survive. Do you just use every medical trick you know even if the baby has no chance or just a really tiny one to survive? The baby would have pain, stress and just a shitty life for as long as it lasts. Here in Holland doctors actually won in court against the parents of a little baby who didn't have a chance to survive. The parents wanted to keep on trying and trying and the doctors just didn't want to torture the baby anymore. It's is a really tough situation and no answer is right.
 
This reminds me of an experience:

Back in 88-89 I went down to DC for the huge Pro-choice (Roe v. Wade was up for grabs) rally. What impressed me most that day was that NOBODY the whole goddamned day--particularly the pro-choice crowd I was with-- would discuss the basic scientific question, i.e., how does one define a human life in an age when you can sustain biological life from a single human cell?

I mean, I TRIED to have that conversation SO many times, and there was a brick wall, as if it was somehow beside the point. People are willing to argue for human rights ad infinitum, but they are much less inclined to say who or what is entitled to them.

BTW, I side with the late Carl Sagan, who said to look at the capabilities that separate humans from other animals and draw the line there. To me, that's results in a fair definition of human life, as opposed to life.
 
Novella, is it possible to explain Sagan's theory a little more, or at least point me to a specific work where he goes into that?

It sounds very interesting.
 
Carl Sagan on defining human life

This is really long and goes into a lot of the issues from both points of view, but essentially states that position.

It reads a little out of date, as the science is not the latest, but the newest science bolsters his points.

Unfortunately, this might steer the discussion into that topic, which is not my intention.



http://www.2think.org/abortion.shtml
 
Thanks, very cool stuff. I glanced through it enough to know I wanted to print it off and really read it.

I promise not to go there in this thread tho'.

I'd like to keep it from being locked.... :)
 
This Terry Schiavo (spelling?) case is huge in the news here (America) this week for obvious reasons if you've been following it at all.

On talk radio today the host was arguing that she is not on "life support", but I would have guessed that the definition of "life support" would include the need to be fed through a tube. Sure she's breathing on her own, and appears to have some kind of basic emotional responce to her parents, but the need for the feeding tube to survive to me signifies life support as I think of it.

Can someone here fill me in on what the clinical definition of "life support" is?
Or at least what your feelings are on what constitutes life support?

What clause or phrase in a living will would make this type of situation an open and shut case as to letting her die with some kind of dignity? Maybe that's the wrong phrase, but I would not want to be kept alive in the state that she's been in for well over 10 years. I would not want to do that to my family.
 
It's a difficult subject. I heard about a similar case where the person in question was totally paralyzed and thought to be colpelety brain deda, but it turns out she recovered. The scary thing is she was totally concious the whole time and could hear a discussion about whether to pull the plug or not. Can you imagine? Until it can be proven that she is in tremendous discomfort and has almost no chance of recovery, I dont think letting her die is an option.
 
Motokid said:
How is this subject looked upon in countries other than America? Would there be a conflict like this in your home country?
Click to expand...
It would definitely be a big issue here in India. India still hasnt legalised euthanasia. I personally feel that even though the woman had probably said that she wants to die rather than live like this, one cannot just go ahead and kill her.
If I had been in the woman's parents' or husband's place, I would never even think of killing that woman.
 
Look, I don't mean to be cold here, but what if that was you, not your child or spouse, or parent. 15 years this poor women has been in this state. 15 years. Would you want to be kept alive in that state for that long? They talk about the emotions she's able to express. Again, not being cold here, but my dog expresses emotion too, and not to different from the way this women is.

It is hard, and I think because there is no written instruction from her as to what should be done I guess they should let her parents keep her alive. But what happens when her parents die? Then who takes care of her?

That's why I'm asking. If I don't want my family keeping me alive in this type of condition how do I state that in a document? Is it as simple as stating I don't want to be kept alive on a feeding tube?
 
What if you kill that woman today and the next day someone finds some cure for her illness?? Man has invented medicines to some diseases which were called 'incurable' in those days. My reasoning is simple - we cant give life, we shouldnt take it away either.
Look, its very easy for me to sit here and talk about all this. If I am actually on the bed for 15 years and living a life which is no better than that of a plant, I would rather choose to die.
 
"Schiavo suffered severe brain damage in 1990 when her heart stopped because of a chemical imbalance, and court-appointed doctors say she is in a persistent vegetative state."

I don't know that a cure for severe brain damage that accured 15 years ago is right around the corner. She was 26 years old when this happened. She's 41 now. How long do you wait for a "cure"?

Why haven't they been able to teach her to eat and drink on her own in the 15 years they've had until now?

I am all for letting her parents take on this crusade. I don't know why the husband is being so stubborn. I heard he's been offered a large sum of money to divorce Terri and let her parents assume all the responcibility. My concern is I don't ever want to be in her situation. And what's her life going to be like when her parents are no longer capable of caring for her? If she never progresses past where she is now, but lives another 20-40 years is it still worth it?
 
This really is a tough one and has had more recent developments with Congress intervening on the feeding tube removal. (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=592966)

Idealogically for me, it's a quality of life issue. This woman had a vibrant life before she took on the vegetative state. What kind of quality is she having now? I've worked with developmentally disabled children and adults who were born into similar states; however, with them, being able to put a ball into a bucket at age 18 was a HUGE deal and a wonderful thing for their quality of life. I've also worked with seniors where just being able to eat a meal was a fantastic. But this is different since her livelihood has basically disintegrated. Personally, I think her parents are being selfish (I don't mean this harshly), and they are just like any other parents who don’t want their children to die before they do.

Anyone who has been married or in a serious relationship has probably stated their wishes to their s.o. It's much more likely that her husband is telling the truth. He tried to help her, but nothing is working. (His story: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=590336&page=1 ) I think he would’ve walked away if he didn’t really believe in what he’s fighting for.

No one will ever know if tomorrow there will be a cure. I guess I wouldn’t want to see any of my family members or friends have their deaths dragged out like this. If anything, it makes the end more painful.

The lesson is simply to have a living will or at the very least a power of attorney for healthcare written immediately upon turning 18. This way, your wishes are known and the person whose judgment you trust has the final say.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top