crunch time

[T_Bone]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050326/D892CJ600.html

I really havent paid as much attention to this as maybe I should have, but why exactly can't the family be allowed to feed this woman?

I understand the husband (ex? he has another woman now) is the legal guardian, and doesn't want her resuccitated, but FED? Why are we starving her to death? Is her only problem right now that she just can't feed herself?

[whabang]

I can understand the wish to end her life; nobody deserves to live like that. But starving someone to death is cruel.

[T_Bone]

whabang wrote:
I can understand the wish to end her life; nobody deserves to live like that. But starving someone to death is cruel.

I think I had originally thought that she was on life support systems or something, but apparently, her parents could simply take her home and feed her.

If this isn't about resuccitation, what's it about? Does guardianship mean we have the legal right to not only refuse to feed someone who can't feed themselves, but forbid others from doing so?

I don't understand what the courts are thinking. I had thought this was about life support, but no.

[Wain]

She's been like this for 15 years, the entire frontal lobe of her brain is gone and has been replaced with spinal fluid.  

The only reason she moves and makes noises and has a hearbeat is because her brainstem is intact.  Her EEG readings for the past 15 years have been completely flatlined.  The woman is braindead, but her body doesn't know it.

FL state laws give the husband custody, and he has stated quite firmly that she wouldn't want to "live" this way.  Her parents are fighting it.

The longest in recorded medical history that someone has been in a Persistent Vegetative State and come out of it was 6 months.

She has no conciousness, and is not aware that she is starving.  It's not life support, but it's nearly the same thing.

[bloodline]

I with Wain... let the woman die!!! If I was in that state I would want to die!

[T_Bone]

Maybe it's the fact that there's no documentation of her will that bothers me. You'd think that any decision that would result in someone's death, would require documentation of the item justifying the decision. There's no proof that she ever told anyone what she wanted, yet her death is being legally ordered, based on this premise.

Normally there's checks and balances involved in any legal situation... but this woman is being legally executed based on something we can't prove but someone claims is true, even though others claim otherwise, and they happen to be family.

It seems in any dispute the compromise shouldn't involve death. When we don't have evidence to execute someone, we don't. This womans life doesn't even enjoy the due process we give convicted murderers.

I don't like how the husbands desires are trumping the parents here. He's moved on already, he's with another woman, etc. If the parents want to be the legal guardians I can't think of one reason they should be denied.

[T_Bone]

bloodline wrote:
I with Wain... let the woman die!!! If I was in that state I would want to die!

Oh yea no disagreement there! Me too!

What I definately wouldn't want though, is for the government to ASSUME that's what I want, even though my parents insist it isn't, and ORDER MY DEATH because of it.

I would hope unless someone could PROVE I wanted to die, I would be fed.

[Cymric]

T_Bone wrote:
What I definately wouldn't want though, is for the government to ASSUME that's what I want, even though my parents insist it isn't, and ORDER MY DEATH because of it.

I would hope unless someone could PROVE I wanted to die, I would be fed.

Well, it may seem like nitpicking, but what is meant with 'you' and 'I' when the brain is dead, atrophied and all functions we associate with normal human consciousness are gone? As far as I, in my current conscious state can make out/decide, I will be dead, and irreversibly so. I even think doctors use this as a definition of 'death'. What reasons are there to keep on feeding me (or you) under such conditions? Keep in mind that this is the crux of the matter. If there were still noticable higher brain functions, there is still a chance that 'you' are around. In this case, there are none.

[Doobrey]

T_Bone wrote:
I understand the husband (ex? he has another woman now) is the legal guardian

If he has another woman, why should he be allowed to make this descision ?
 Why not pass guardianship to her parents?

[the_leander]

I have to be honest, if her brain is so much mush, then she's dead already as Wain says. As it stands, theres just enough left for life support, but beyond that theres not much difference between her and a mixed grill.

[bloodline]

the_leander wrote:
I have to be honest, if her brain is so much mush, then she's dead already as Wain says. As it stands, theres just enough left for life support

There's not even enough for that... if they stop forcing food down her throat through a plastic tube... she'll die..

[JaXanim]

Well she doen't look 'brain dead' to me! Who says her brain is 'mush'? What sort of diagnosis is that?  Yours presumably. When I saw her on tv over the last couple of weeks, She clearly recognised her mother/father and had a significant capacity to communicate using her eyes. She also moves her head and seems to follow what's happening around her. This woman isn't brain dead and she is not in a PVS (in my opinion).

This decision to withdraw food, in spite of her parents' willingness to look after her, smells like someone's convenience.

JaX

[the_leander]

This is Mrs Schiavo's brain, note that big dark spot - thats spinal fluid that has replaced the cavity that was left by her brain rotting, or as I put it "turning into mush"

This, just for the sake of fairness is what a brain scan *should* show.



Yes, she moves, makes sounds etc. But there is NO brain activity, no amount of doctored video is going to change that, she is brain dead. The only thing keeping the whole shabang going is that her spinal cord is in tact. To think that she is in any way alive or capable of recognising ANYTHING is wishful thinking only. I know that might sound calous but quite frankly I don't care what you think. She is little more then a mixed grill attached to $10,000's worth of equipment.

[Karlos]

JaXanim wrote:
Well she doen't look 'brain dead' to me! Who says her brain is 'mush'? What sort of diagnosis is that?  Yours presumably. When I saw her on tv over the last couple of weeks, She clearly recognised her mother/father and had a significant capacity to communicate using her eyes. She also moves her head and seems to follow what's happening around her. This woman isn't brain dead and she is not in a PVS (in my opinion).

I'm sorry, but the_leander is correct as far as it is possible to be. That she is in a PVS is not his diagnosis, its the neurologists that have studied her. That her brain is not functional and so much dead tissue is not his diagnosis, its again the neurologists that have studied her.

Your description of her cognitive ability is completely subjective. We have seen only a tiny amount of footage. Even then, my opinion on what I have seen in that footage is different from yours. Absolutely nothing in the footage I saw suggested she was remotely cognitive.

Of course, this is a deeply sensetive issue. There rarely is any agreement where emotion is in conflict with rationality.

[T_Bone]

@karlos
"Of course, this is a deeply sensetive issue. There rarely is any agreement where emotion is in conflict with rationality."

Even rationally I don't like it. I don't like who made the decision. The government decided she is to die, not that she would be allowed to die, but actively killed. It's not an option that's graciously being extended to someone with no hope, it's an ultimatum that not only extinguishes all hope, but removes all options as well. On top of this, it's in direct conflict with the wishes of her parents, who I cant understand why are not the legal guardians after the husband remarried.

I don't believe the husband is a bad man, I don't necessarily think he's murdered her or in any way wanted any of this to happen, and I understand this would give him closure, but I don't really think he NEEDS this closure after having moved on already. At this point in time, he really should not be considered her guardian.

She's going to die, it's inevitable, and she's probably not going to know one way or the other, but the precident this sets is just bad. If the government ever ordered one of my children to die, and decided I had no say in the matter, I don't know what I'd do, but it's possible they wouldn't let me post here anymore from prison.

If I were the judge, I would have stayed away from the issue altogether, after giving guardianship to her parents. The way things are happening now are too messy.