<p>momsdream, </p>
<p>Would you support the decision to remove a feedng tube from a person who had left specific instructions in this regard, or who had designated a loved one with medical power of attorney and left the judgement of meaningful life up to him/her?</p>
<p>yes. In that case, the person has already stated their wishes.</p>
<p>I do have a medical directive. It states that if I am legally brain dead and unable to function without artificial respiration, I am to be disconnected. But, it also states that if I am terminal or comatose but not brain dead, that feeding and hydration should be continued until natural death occurs. </p>
<p>I feel very strongly about this as these are basic human necessities. I do not consider them to be artificial means and, as I said, when faced with a similiar decision with a loved one, I was told by doctors that removing hydration can indeed be a painful way to die, even for comatose patients. However, if one of my loved ones had a directive stating that they would want food/hydration cut off, I would follow it. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, we do not KNOW that when Terry Schiavo said she would not want to be “kept alive” in her current state that she meant she wanted food and hydration cut. She might very well have meant the same thing that I do: that she only wanted her life ended if she couldn’t breathe on her own and was legally brain dead.</p>
<p>The whole Schiavo case is heartbreaking and no one will “win” in the end. I have my doubts about whether congress should be getting involved and I am sure that each side has their own version of what is going on. But, I do not believe that someone should be starved to death without knowing their clear wishes of what they wanted.</p>
<p>I might feel differently if it were being suggested that Terry be given a massive dose of, say morphine, to quicken the end of her suffering. That would be more humane in my mind and it is not much different than what is done for many terminally ill cancer patients, prisoners on death row, and even the family pet.</p>
<p>By the way, I am opposed to the criminal death penalty. But even condemned prisoners are given many opportunities to avoid death and I see the endless court battle in the Schiavo case as very similiar. Let it go to the Supreme Court if necessary. </p>
<p>I wonder, however, how folks would react to the idea of letting condemned prisoners starve to death? Obviously, they are not “contributing” to society so why should we spend the money to give them lethal injections. Let’s just withdraw food and water. Not such a palatable idea, is it? (No pun intended)</p>
<p>Carolyn I agree with you on the death penalty. </p>
<p>I am also definitley for the big morphine dose if I were terminal and suffering. I find it incredible that we do not allow people to end their lives humanely when they decide they have had enough. I recognize that mental illness and depression can skew this decision, and would want to know that those problems had been ruled out–but in the event that the decision is a rational one it amazes me that it is not supported. </p>
<p>The only exception I put into my medical power of attorney is that I told my mom to keep me plugged in if she thought that my <strong>kids</strong> would be harmed by me being unplugged. I still have young kids, and the only reason I would see to go on in a vegetative state would be if they needed more time to process things & let go, or to feel that “everything” had been tried.</p>
<p>To take Carolyn’s point a little further…I’m sure there are people in institutions that have the same mental disabilities, but are able to say, pick up a hamburger and a cup of water. No one would suggest that we “pull the plug” on them by denying them sustenance (i.e., starving them to death). Teri isn’t able to pick up the food herself, apparently. But I don’t see the difference, in terms of denying her food and water in order to cause her death. Just to be clear, I too would have far less trouble with this if euthenasia were an option, and she had chosen it.</p>
<p>Wahoo,</p>
<p>I know a girl who is in the same situation as Terri as the result of a car accident in which she was under water long enough for the water to kill some of her brain cells. She is on a feeding tube, as she cannot eat the way the rest of us do. She cannot walk, talk, but apparently the part of her brain governing emotions were not damaged as she is able to make noise and cry when something is wrong or someone leaves the room. As far as I know she can only blink her eyes. Is she dead?</p>
<p>How do we know she didn’t choose it? Because her parents said so? THe same parents who didn’t notice their daughter as a teenager probably had an eating disorder? And how do you know that other people are the same as Terri is? That is assuming quite a lot, and is not what numerous docters have said. T</p>
<p>My biggest gripe is the congresspeople suddenly stepping up and valuing life? SOme are the same ones that want to CUT social security disabilty (Terrie receives Medicaid, in years to come, people like her might not have the governments help if these same righteous Congress People have there way) programs, that cut food programs, that made it more expensive for seniors to buy medicine, that have no problem executing minors, who are basically sxpousing every person for themselves…the hypocracy is so blatant…and how many of you people on here are so against removing of the feeding tube, how many of you work with the disabled and take care of others…if you do great, if you don’t, look at yourselves…</p>
<p>If your “biggest gripe is the congresspeople” I think that says enough about where you’re coming from. Some of the hypocrites here are concerned about starving a disabled person to death. It could easily be my poor father-in-law, with his Parkinson’s. His violently shaking hands won’t always let him feed himself, but he sure lights up in his agony when he sees the grandchildren.</p>
<p>Just curious…in the press and in Congress this issue is being portrayed as divisive along fairly knee-jerk lines, i.e., pro-choice vs. right-to-life. Do people here believe that to be true? I am pro-choice and anti-death penalty, but I feel strongly that there is something totally bizarre about Michael S.'s insistence that his wife needs to die and I did not support her being taken off her feeding tube. </p>
<p>Even assuming Terri did say she did not want to be kept alive, given she had an eating disorder I am not convinced one could say that she had her full faculties to make such a decision. </p>
<p>That the whole topic has become a huge political football is so unfortunate. If we learn nothing else from this case, it is that we as a society need to define these issues much more clearly and we as individuals need to make our end-of-life wishes known in writing.</p>
<p>The people on the thread have no power, the Congress People do, and while they are trying to take away care and money for many disabled, elderly, young, and people on the edges of society, they rally around one woman…its astounding that suddenly everyone cares about one person, while hundreds of thousands of people in the country are underfed, can’t get medical care, can’t get help with their elderly parents, where we have homeless on the street, I guess those hundreds and millions of lives have less value. What about the mentally ill, the homeless vets, where are these congress people for them? When do let get together in emergency session of the homeless that die on the streets? Or the innocent sent to the gas chamber? Where are they then?</p>
<p>That is sad to me. Where are all the shouts for the homeless, the hungry, the ill? When those congress people step up for them, then I will have some respect. </p>
<p>And do you think a person has a right to decide at the end how it will go? Many people have dnr, and living wills. Are they suicidal and irrational? Where do we draw the line between personal rights and state interference and when parents views take precedent of the legal marriage, we need to see what is really going on…</p>
<p>Driver, I am sad for your father in-law, but if Congress gets its way, in years to come, people in his condition could lose so much. And when his medication gets to expensive? When you need to put him someplace, how will you pay? is this being addressed? No…</p>
<p>citygirlsmom, you are getting dangerously close to the edge of the slippery slope in which society starts to evaluate all health care situations based upon how the money could be better spent. Think of the billions that can be put to “better” use if we just let all of the hopelessly insane people starve to death. And what about all of the terminally ill cancer patients? And just think about the alzheimer patients who no longer recognize their own family? We might as well let them starve to death as well and save a bundle of money.</p>
<p>When did I say that? I never said anything of the sort. I said that while our government is focusing all its power and might on one person, they are not talking about the millions of people in this country that are hungry, sick, mentally ill…where is the compassion for them…no instead, they want to take away funds for the hungry, the mentally ill, the disabled, the terminally ill…stepping in for one person does nothing for the millions on the edge. If our government cared about disabled people, they would make sure everyone that needed glasses would have them. The Lions Club collected millions of recycled glasses very year for people in this country that cannot afford glasses, who can not see well enough to work, read, and take care of themselve and their families? Why do we have people in this country who cannot get eyeglasses? Just one example. </p>
<p>So don’t put words in my mouth…when did I say starve the ill? I said if that was their wish, it should be respected? I am deeply offended that you would say that. </p>
<p>My point was that while the congress seems to value Terri’s life, they don’t seem to value others…our government is taking away breakfast programs for hungry kids, perscription medicine is out of reach for many seniors, the mentally ill have no place to go…When congress steps up for EVERY suffering person in this country and does whatever they can to fund those programs, then I will believe their intentions. Until then, they are the ones taking food out of childrens mouths.</p>
<p>Please do not say things about what I said that misrepresent what I said. I value all life, I work with children, the homeless and the disabled. I feed the hungry. I clothe the poor. I walk the walk. I step up.</p>
<p>Again, I never even got close to saying what you implied I said. And if you look closely at how our government spends its money, you will see who values life.</p>
<p>edit: oopsss</p>
<p>edit:</p>
<p>So don’t put words in my mouth…when did I say starve the ill? </p>
<p>I said if that if a person stated what the wanted done, it should be respected. I am deeply offended that you would say that I placed different values on different lives.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I AGREE!!! Whether or not you believe in right-to-die, and whether or not you trust Michael S’s motives, citygirlsmom is right on this point-- the hypocrisy of our government is staggering.</p>
<p>I believe this case is connected to the right wing’s agenda of portraying the “liberal courts” and “liberal media” as villains, eroding the moral values in society… “C’mon Walmart people, side with the right-- we aren’t like these liberal elitists telling you your values are wrong or trying to let homos teach your children…” When in fact the right is absolutely pounding the downtrodden, ill, poor. </p>
<p>What about some outrage to compel the feeding of a hungry person who <strong>actually knows</strong> he is hungry? If liberals tried to get court orders and congressional acts to plug gaping holes in the social safety net, they’d catch hell! </p>
<p>When a conservative judge tells a husband what to do about his wife’s medical care, it’s fine & heroic. When a liberal judge tells a gay couple they can marry, it’s inappropriate, overreaching, intrusive. This seems pretty inconsistent to me.</p>
<p>triple post</p>
<p>double post</p>
<p>Yes, in Utopia we will have sufficient resources to do all that you want. But until then, for most Americans, the removal of a feeding tube is so barberic that we applaud Congress’ actions to stop it.</p>
<p>I’m not sure I follow your argument about the glasses. It seems to me society has that “problem” pretty much under control. By recycling used glasses, our governmental resources can be used for other things. Would you rather we stop the recycling program and divert money from some other social function to provide new glasses?</p>
<p>NOOOOO, jeese, fundingfather!!! The fact that our government doesn’t care about its people is my point…and we do have sufficient resources, we just spend it in the wrong places…</p>
<p>barbaric is sending people to die on a lie, barbaric is putting to death a minor, barbaric is people living on the streets who served in our wars, barbaric is taking away food programs, barbaric is allowing polluters to go unpunished, barbaric is taking away peoples homes because they can’t pay medical bills, barbaric is not making medicine affordable, I could go on and on, but Fundingfather, I think you will probably diisregard all of that…how sad…</p>
<p>ooppppps double post</p>