Queen Prawn Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 I have to admit that I have mixed feelings on this one. Earlier this year my family had to make the decision to remove life supports from my grandmother. For her, it was the breathing apparatus rather than the feeding tube. I understand where the husband is coming from, but I don't think I could starve my spouse to death...not sure I could at all. But if my spouse made specific statements about what to do in this situation, I would feel that I have to carry out those wishes. What do you guys think about the government's involvement on behalf of her parents? Who do you think should be responsible for the decision - her husband or her parents? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 Wow.. this one is tough. IMO, once you get married, your spouse is your voice if you can no longer speak. I would hope that the parents would have enough faith in their child to know that they loved and chose to spend the rest of their life with that person for a reason. But ultimately, I think it is the spouses decision. Easy solution is for everyone to make a living will with specific provisions as to what to do when and if the situation arises. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubKilla Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 I'm probably the biggest proponent of death. I'm pro-execution, pro-abortion, and pro-euthanasia. A hypocrite I am not. Hopefully, the State of Florida picks up the medical bills now for the family since the State is forcing them to keep this woman alive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sox4lifeinPA Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 My grandmother had a "do not resusitate" clause in her will, but my dad had her hooked up to a ventilator right after she had a heart attack. She ended up living for another 6+ years. I can't imagine starving my wife to death... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 Putting my personal feelings aside for the parties involved, my big complaint is that Jeb Bush needs to stay the hell out of the case. Checks and Balances would dictate that this is a case for the courts, and the courts decided in favor of the husband. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 It was a banner day for the Bush Brothers yesterday. Dubya gets the partial-birth abortion ban through the Senate and to his desk WITHOUT having to add the “health of the mother” clauses that have led to the defeat of similar bills in the past. Then Jeb does an end-run on the courts and possibly the constitution to make a political ping-pong ball out of the body formerly known as Terri Shievo (sp?). Despite the best intentions of parents who desperately hope the daughter can recover (after 14 years!), court-appointed doctors have determined that any perceived responses to stimuli are just reflexive and she’s NOT coming back. The family may be well-intentioned but is being selfish. The husband has been bashed for having a girlfriend and a child with said girlfriend while never formally divorcing his persistent-vegetative wife. But, the point is if he divorced her he could no longer fight to see that HER WISHES are carried out because control would revert to the parents. Jeb Bush and the conservative Florida legislature that is sucking up to the religious right have no real interest in the well-being of Terri Shievo. In fact, they have been informed that there may now be organ damage after cessation of feeding for 4 days, but they went ahead and put the tube back in anyway. The whole question of “how can you put a loved one through a painful starvation death?” only comes up now because we have a barbaric American society that won’t allow an assisted suicide because death with dignity is not allowed as a basic right of this country’s citizens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moochpuppy Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 Wow.. this one is tough. IMO, once you get married, your spouse is your voice if you can no longer speak. My thoughts exactly. If someone wishes to die, I believe it's their choice. I certainly do not want to live my life as a vegetable and I wouldn't want to put the burden of taking care of me that way on my wife. That's no life for either person. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlliniBob72 Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 I'm not a doctor, but I saw video of her following a balloon with her eyes and head and they say she squeezes her mother's hand in response to questions. That flies in the face of my definition of "vegetative". I don't begrudge the husband for moving on, but was that the intent of the law making the spouse the legal guardian? As a parent, would you want a man with a girlfriend and children with that woman making the life or death decision for your child? If he hasn't legally divorced the woman, he has at least emotionally divorced her. Remember not too long ago the man that came out of a coma of 20 years? He just out of the blue said "mom" and has been awake since. This is probably what the parents are hoping for. I heard the dad on the radio the other day and he claimed that the husband put his daughter in this state by strangling her. A pretty outrageous charge, but I'll cut a distraught father some slack. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 Appearances are deceiving. A "persistent vegetative state" is a condition in which individuals have lost cognitive neurological function and awareness of the environment but retain non-cognitive function and a perceived sleep-wake cycle. But, the patient has lost the higher cerebral powers of the brain and only the primitive functions of the brainstem (breathing, circulation, etc) remain relatively intact. Spontaneous movements may occur and the eyes may open in response to external stimuli, but the patient does not speak or obey commands. Patients in a vegetative state may appear somewhat normal. They may occasionally grimace, cry, or laugh, but it is all completely reflexive and not meditated. Some quality of life... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 And now in a new twist the husband isn't allowing the family to visit their daughter anymore.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 As a husband and father of two I have a hard time with our custom of having the spouse decide. If she was to recover what would this guy do? Leave his girlfriend? Unfortunantly spouses come and go in this society but giving birth is forever. I'm supporting parents positions in these types of matters, no matter what their position is. I should also say if it was my decision, I would probably want to see her go peacefully. It's a shame that the option is starving her to death and not some sort of assisted death. I'm wondering how many of you that support the husband have kids? The courts will step in and allow visitation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Honda Civic Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 I'm Hungry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 As a husband and father of two I have a hard time with our custom of having the spouse decide. If she was to recover what would this guy do? Leave his girlfriend? Unfortunantly spouses come and go in this society but giving birth is forever. I'm supporting parents positions in these types of matters, no matter what their position is. I should also say if it was my decision, I would probably want to see her go peacefully. It's a shame that the option is starving her to death and not some sort of assisted death. I'm wondering how many of you that support the husband have kids? The courts will step in and allow visitation. I have two small children. I hope to be around for them for a LONG TIME, but just in case something bad happens and Ol' Dad ends up veggiefied I'll have to give them plug-pulling lessons when they get a little older. And, in this case there is no recovering. There is no forebrain functioning. The case that was brought up earlier in the thread about the guy who came out of a comma after like 20 years... i assume that is the case they made the movie Awakenings about. I don't fully recall the details, but in that case it was a chemical imbalance that indced the coma, and once that was corrected the people could be brought around. In the currrent case, it is merely coincidental that it was a chemical imbalance that stopped Terri Shiavo's heart. The problem was that her conciouss brain functioning died while her heart was stopped. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmmmmbeeer Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 So this husband has apparently refused treatement, would not let her parents see her without his accompaniment prior to this case, won $1 million in court, left his "wife" in the same room of a hospice for 3 yrs straight (as in she never once left the room in over 1000 days), has a pseudo-wife and another kid, and we're supposed to believe what this guy claims his wife said years ago??? Hell no. This should have been in writing, bottom line. It is inhumane to starve a person to death on the words of anyone, much less this money-hungry EX-husband. Another thing I find funny is how people are bashing Jeb Bush, mostly dems, while these same people (mostly dems) are supposed to be known for their compassion, human rights stances, and bleeding hearts. So are those only important when a republican isn't involved and taking the humane side of things? I'm confused. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 Another thing I find funny is how people are bashing Jeb Bush, mostly dems, while these same people (mostly dems) are supposed to be known for their compassion, human rights stances, and bleeding hearts. So are those only important when a republican isn't involved and taking the humane side of things? I'm confused. No, they are important when a human being is experiencing the concious human condition. Terri Shiavo clearly is not. And as stated, yes starvation is a less than perfect way to allow this persons body to die with dignity. But conservative legislators have also ensured tthat it remains illegal to assist someone with zero quality of life in dying with dignity. Regardless of political or ideological leanings, put yourself for a moment into the woman's shoes - not her parents'. Could you ever consider that this is what you would want for yourself in the same situation?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmmmmbeeer Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 No, they are important when a human being is experiencing the concious human condition. Terri Shiavo clearly is not. And as stated, yes starvation is a less than perfect way to allow this persons body to die with dignity. But conservative legislators have also ensured tthat it remains illegal to assist someone with zero quality of life in dying with dignity. Regardless of political or ideological leanings, put yourself for a moment into the woman's shoes - not her parents'. Could you ever consider that this is what you would want for yourself in the same situation?? Basically you're asking me if I'd rather die from lethal injection (dying while unconscious, painless) or dying of starvation/dehydration in a cell. Let me put it this way...I would rather die from jumping off a building, being crushed to death in an automobile accident, or dying of massive gunshot wounds than starving over a 2 week period. Talk about a slow, agonizing death....it's torture, not euthanasia. From your earlier post it sounds as if you've had some sort of medical training which certainly lends some creedence to your viewpoint. On the other hand, Schiavo's parents say that they have doctors who are convinced they can get her to eat voluntarily and I'm sure those doctors have had atleast as much training as you have. I also find it hard to believe, from the reports that I've read, that her asshole "husband" has ever gone out of his way to seek the therapy that these doctors recommend. I find it rather unnerving that there are people in this world that would actually encourage a husband to have the right to starve his wife to death. I mean I'd rather see Kevorkian in her hospice room than see a feeding tube removed. One thing that I hope results from this whole event is more people, regardless of age, signing living wills or some other sort of documentation to ensure that THEIR wishes are followed rather than the wishes of a selfish spouse or other state-appointed legal guardian. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 Yeah, a living will certainly is a good idea. And you're right, starvation doesn't sound pleasant, even for a body without a mind. Not a medical doctor, but my doctorate is in biology so I have some familiarity with the stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 There is a reason they won't let you die a dignified death. MONEY .... If the doctors and hospitals can keep you hanging for 3 weeks before letting you die, they will have successfully sucked up any and all insurance and/or inheritance that the surviving family members may have received. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 Trying to reach a decision using medical opinion would be difficult at best. Very good medical minds will have opinions wrapped 360 degrees around almost every case like this. IMNSHO it comes down to who should make the difficult decision. The government through the courts? The government through an appointed guardian? A panel of Doctors not involved with the case? The patient's Doctor? The spouse? The parents? The individual? My heirarchy of decision is in reverse order of above. I place the parental rights ahead of the spouses. I do not like the government getting involved through any means. It is probably very unfair and potentially dangerous for the attending Doctor to make the call. I'm close enough to the medical profession to tell you keeping a person alive is not a monitary decision. Sometimes where they die can be a statistical decision. Getting them out of the operating room and into recovery can help keep the surgical scorecard clean. There is some business in live and death. The vast number of medical professionals want to do what is right by the patient every time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.