if you were terri schiavo would you want to be kept alive artificially?
lets not make this political, just a simple poll question.
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 30 of 139
-
-
NO!!!!!!
No matter who you are.. if it's time to go... it's time to go!!!!!!!!! -
In the Sydney Morning Herald, it was reported that a poll done in the US showed about 60% of people supported the position of letting her die, 20% supported the position of keeping her alive with the remained undecided.
Regards.Michael Tam
w: Morsels of Evidence -
i think that if she had a chance to ever be normal again, then yes, she should be kept alive. but all of her doctors have said that her brain is too damaged to ever be normal again, and that she will be like this for the rest of her life. so i do not think she should be kept alive.
-
Originally Posted by vitualisWant my help? Ask here! (not via PM!)
FAQs: Best Blank Discs • Best TBCs • Best VCRs for capture • Restore VHS -
I'd say I don't know... no way to know what that state of consciousness would be like.
If it was a state of oblivion, I think the answer for me would be "I don't care one way or the other." Let other people decide. If they want to cling to memories and my living form, let 'em... if they want to let me go, let 'em... -
I think she should be allowed to die, but not from starving to death.
-
Originally Posted by Craig TuckerWant my help? Ask here! (not via PM!)
FAQs: Best Blank Discs • Best TBCs • Best VCRs for capture • Restore VHS -
Originally Posted by lumis
In my own case, such issues would depend on one thing. If I was in intractible pain that could not be controlled by drugs, I'd probably want the plug pulled. But, if I was in a coma ... or even in a "persistent vegetative state" (whatever that is) ... I'd want the exact opposite. In that case, if all the stars in the universe were "chances" and I only had one chance out of all of those chances to recover, I'd want that chance! -
I would imagine that she is getting PEG feeds (i.e., a plastic tube that goes through her abdominal wall into her stomach so that water and liquid food can be given).
So yes, she would be "starved" in a sense.
However, it isn't the gruesome death most people make it out to be. Firstly, it is extremely unlikely that she would "feel" any sort of discomfort. In addition, the natural progression would be she would go into renal failure and slip into a coma days before she would actually die.
Let us keep this in perspective. She is not dying from "starvation". She is dying from the brain injury she suffered a decade and a half ago.
Regards.Michael Tam
w: Morsels of Evidence -
Originally Posted by AlecWest
Secondly, you are talking about a potential conflict of interest which is true, but an unavoidable fact of nature. Does the existence of a conflict of interest automatically mean that the ex-husband isn't really expressing Terri's true wishes? No.
Which is why this case has already gone to court multiple times. The decisions of those previous cases should be respected. You cannot tell me that the impulse decisions of politicians in Congress are better considered into terms of respecting Terri's wishes than the previous decisions of the courts.
But, if I was in a coma ... or even in a "persistent vegetative state" (whatever that is) ... I'd want the exact opposite. In that case, if all the stars in the universe were "chances" and I only had one chance out of all of those chances to recover, I'd want that chance!
If you were in a persistent vegetative state after extensive hypoxic brain injury with no chance of recovery (e.g., you've been a "vegetable" for over a year) and require acute medical resources to keep your body alive, is it fair to everybody else who needs the health system?
There are many doctors including myself who do not think that "living wills" or "advanced directives" are necessarily a good idea. Firstly, there is an expectation that such a system would solve current ethical and medicolegal dilemmas. They won't. Unfortunately, when comes right down to it, the time when you need such mechanisms in place are also the times when you are no longer capable of putting forward your CURRENT opinion... and there are always situations that will not be forseeable or entirely applicable to the terms in an advanced directive.
Secondly, the ethical dilemma remains. Many people would probably agree to advanced directives to not resuscitate but do most laypeople actually know what that means when they are not in the situation? Most people don't actually appreciate the magnitude of the decision until it gets close to home (e.g., a relative in the situtation). For example, if you were young and suffered a severe illness (e.g., meningococcal meningitis), no doctor would hesitate to aggressively resuscitate you even in apparently hopeless situations simply because some people WILL come back. An advanced directive would be a significant complication (i.e., leading to worsened outcomes) unless it were so limited in its scope to be essentially meaningless.
Ultimately, the most appropriate management in each situation is not archetypical and really depends on the clinical situation. A decision is best made through a collaborative process between the treating team and family and decisions AGAINST family wishes should only be needed when they are clearly in conflict with the best interests of the patient (e.g., family wanting a patient to die who is clearly treatable) or are deemed clinical unreasonable (e.g., keeping brain dead patient hooked up to machinery to keep the body alive).
The best "advanced directive" I believe is for people to speak to their family or "significant others" about such issues so that THEY know how you think and feel about these issues. If such a time comes when it becomes applicable, the treating team can get consensus about what a person would have wanted in the particular situation. Although it may seem (and probably in this situation) that a piece of paper with Terri's thoughts on it would have been very helpful, widespread use of advanced directives or living wills will probably cause more problems than they solve.
Regards.Michael Tam
w: Morsels of Evidence -
Originally Posted by vitualis
Which is why this case has already gone to court multiple times. The decisions of those previous cases should be respected. You cannot tell me that the impulse decisions of politicians in Congress are better considered into terms of respecting Terri's wishes than the previous decisions of the courts.
If you were in a persistent vegetative state after extensive hypoxic brain injury with no chance of recovery (e.g., you've been a "vegetable" for over a year) and require acute medical resources to keep your body alive, is it fair to everybody else who needs the health system? -
This is from a paper titled, "Responding to Patients in the Persistent Vegetative State" by D. P. O'mathuna, PhD. One note ... "MSTF" is an acronym for Multi-Society Task Force and "PVS" is an acronym for Persistent Vegetative State:
A patient's prognosis must be considered when choosing medical therapies. According to the MSTF, there is no effective treatment available to reverse PVS. The chances of spontaneous recovery depend on the cause of PVS and the age of the patient. There is currently no hope for recovery from degenerative diseases (like Alzeimher's) or developmental abnormalities (like anencephaly). However, when PVS in adults was caused by a traumatic injury (e.g. traffic accident), one year later, 33% had died, 15% remained in PVS and 52% recovered consciousness. Of those who recovered consciousness, 54% had severe disability, 33% had moderate disability and 13% had a good recovery.
These statistics show that a significant number of people recover from PVS within a year after injury. However, the chances of recovery are much lower after longer periods in PVS. Therefore, the MSTF concluded that PVS should be considered permanent 12 months after a traumatic injury, or three months after a nontraumatic injury. However, a few cases of dramatic recovery after extended periods are well documented. One patient recovered after three years in PVS, to the point of being alert and well-oriented.
K. Higashi et al., "Five-year follow-up Study of Patients with Persistent Vegetative State," Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry 44 (1981): 552-4 -
Polls don't mean sh*t. Nobody here counts. Nobody here is Terri Schiavo. Nobody knows what she wants. Maybe 99% of people would rather die. You included. There is still that 1% that wish to live. Her own parents that brought her into this world aren't ready to take her out of it. Just some man she once married. Newsflash, he's moved on and had 2 kids with another woman.
-
That doesn't mean he doesn't still know her better than her parents. It's quite possible. And newsflash: how many times has this been in court and it's still been sided with him?
-
Originally Posted by shelbyGT
Right now, this case could be referred to as Parents vs. Husband. But how would those judges have ruled if it was Parents vs. Ex-Husband? And currently, is Terri's spouse behaving more like a husband or more like an ex-husband? I just hope my life isn't held in the balance based on some legal technicality. -
Newsflash: even if they met her they'd see a person unresponsive to the world around her. I'm sure they've gone over enough video footage to get a glimpse of what her life is like.
And for argument sake: I still side with the spouse. Yes, he has "moved on" as you eloquently put it. However, that doesn't necessarily degrade his love for Terri. It wasn't his choice that she had a heart attack and is now debilitated. He can still love her with the same passion as before. Knowing her and her wishes, he should be allowed to do what he is doing. Moving on with his life and continuing to try and be happy is in no way disrespectful of her. Do you not think that Terri would want her husband to continue living and to be happy if she were gone?
Well, for all intents and purposes she is gone, and he continues to try and do what he believes is right by her as well as "moving on".
IMHO, If I pass away before my wife, I would want her to remember me, but not to get held up on me to the point where she couldn't love again. I would love for her to get remarried and to continue on with life.
It's opinions and how you read into the situation, that's all it is. -
I completely trust that my wife would make the right decision if this would ever happen to me. I don't see the husbands want to end his wife's suffering as being selfish, I see her parents clinging to an empty vessel that looks like their daughter as being selfish. I can't imagine what he must have gone through. I imagine this decision didn't come lightly. You don't marry a person with the intention of losing them to an awful tragedy such as this (not everyone at least). I think what really makes it difficult in the eyes of the parents and in the eyes of public is that she appears to be responsive because she is "conscious". I don't think this would have been as much of an issue if she was in a unconscious vegetative state. Man, life can suck sometimes.
-
Originally Posted by HatchetMan
so she gets to make adult choices, until her parents don't like them, and then they get the final word? how does that work?
I find it interesting that many of the same people* who came down on the side of "protecting the sanctity of marraige" in referendums this past voting season are ready to invade that sanctity and it's responsibilities now...
(* specifically NOT including HatchetMan in this group, as I don't know his stance).
as to the whole insurance issue - someone offered the husband $1,000,000 to *not* pull the plug, and he declined - do you think he's in line to get a million from a life insurance policy?- housepig
----------------
Housepig Records
out now:
Various Artists "Six Doors"
Unicorn "Playing With Light" -
Originally Posted by housepig
Another unknown ... just like Terri's take on all this. -
Bodyslide: did you actually vote No?
- Jie(1)BenQ 1620 w/ B7u9 w/ MCSE speed patch
(2)Philips 8631 @ BenQ1620 w/ B7U9 w/ MCSE speed patch
GET MCSE HERE
BenQ Ownz j00 -
Originally Posted by Ma_Jie
-
Originally Posted by AlecWest
and I doubt that you'd be able to purchase life insurance for someone who's in a permanent vegetative state - so are you telling me that she carried $1.3 million in life insurance back in 1986 when she suffered her problems?- housepig
----------------
Housepig Records
out now:
Various Artists "Six Doors"
Unicorn "Playing With Light" -
How many people here are as open with their parents as they are with their significant other? Not many.
Want my help? Ask here! (not via PM!)
FAQs: Best Blank Discs • Best TBCs • Best VCRs for capture • Restore VHS -
Originally Posted by housepig
But, you might be right. No one knows what his personal finances are. Maybe he doesn't even have a policy on her at all. Or, maybe he has more than one policy on her. My ex-wife had two on me. Hehe, maybe she still does ... and is "hoping" for a change in my condition. -
Originally Posted by lordsmurf
-
i think he was holding out hope for a few years, then it became apparent to him that there was none.. so he wanted to follow what she said his wishes were, then her parents intervened and it went to court. etc. etc..