Re: Life is worthless,unless you are perfect? Guess Hitler was right....

[Guest guest]

>

> .....and our country is hot on the heels of The Netherlands,with our

calm

> acceptance of murder of those in the way of the healthy,as witness the

> murder of Terri Schiavo and so many others....

>

>

The merger of Autism Speaks and NAAR will hasten the day when

America has a final solution for us.

Jerry Newport

[Guest guest]

Gail & her Service Dogs wrote:

> .....and our country is hot on the heels of The Netherlands,with our calm

> acceptance of murder of those in the way of the healthy,as witness the

> murder of Terri Schiavo and so many others....

Terri Schiavo was not in anyone's way and was by no stretch of the

imagination murdered.

[Guest guest]

> .....and our country is hot on the heels of The Netherlands,

> http://www.raggededgemagazine.com/departments/news/000659.html

> New Dutch Panel Likely To Protect Doctors That Euthanize Babies

My understanding of this is that these killings are authorized

for newborns who have no hope of living; not for someone who

has, for example, a non-life threatening defect and AFAIK, not

for a defect which can be treated. Yes, I know we will all die,

but that isn't the criteria for Neatherlands' euthenasia law

AFAIK.

> with our calm acceptance of murder of those in the way of

> the healthy,

I'm not sure what that means, but ...

> as witness the murder of Terri Schiavo and so many others....

My response to that is (excuse the sarcasm):

" If I am in a state like that, I'd like someone to punch a hole

in my abdomen with a trocar, and then stick a vinyl tube into

the hole until it festers. Then repeat the process, while my

crazy relatives run flashlights across my eyes to see if my

cerebial cortex is still wired to receive impulses from my

retna. Then have these a****s put a video of that s*** on the

Internet to show I was so worthless as a person that the entire

world gets to gawk at me in that state. Don't let me die in

peace, because I'd rather be a publicity stunt to beef up the

ratings of AM radio talk shows. "

I saw the video of those people playing with that woman, and it

made me nearly sick. If anyone thinks that woman should have

been left on " life support " (i.e., a tube stuck in her side,

like a bile-producing bear in China), you should look up

" Schiavo video " on the web and see that thing. It is SICK.

- s

[Guest guest]

>

>

>> .....and our country is hot on the heels of The Netherlands,

>> http://www.raggededgemagazine.com/departments/news/000659.html

>> New Dutch Panel Likely To Protect Doctors That Euthanize Babies

>

> My understanding of this is that these killings are authorized

> for newborns who have no hope of living; not for someone who

> has, for example, a non-life threatening defect and AFAIK, not

> for a defect which can be treated. Yes, I know we will all die,

> but that isn't the criteria for Neatherlands' euthenasia law

> AFAIK.

What the study shows, more then this, is that basically they are

trying to make the law match what doctors are ALREADY DOING, contrary

to the law.

Basically it shows that doctors think that their morals are above

those of government and will take matters into their own hands when

they think someone would be better off dead, even it if is illegal.

The debate about whether or not the people really are better off dead

is actually secondary.

> " If I am in a state like that, I'd like someone to punch a hole

> in my abdomen with a trocar, and then stick a vinyl tube into

> the hole until it festers. Then repeat the process, while my

> crazy relatives run flashlights across my eyes to see if my

> cerebial cortex is still wired to receive impulses from my

> retna. Then have these a****s put a video of that s*** on the

> Internet to show I was so worthless as a person that the entire

> world gets to gawk at me in that state. Don't let me die in

> peace, because I'd rather be a publicity stunt to beef up the

> ratings of AM radio talk shows. "

If it " festers " , then it was negligent medical care. Plain and

simple. The solution is to fix the medical care, not kill the patient.

That aside, let's say - for argument - that Terri was conscious and

aware. Is her life worth less because she couldn't communicate? How

do you tell the difference between the Terri that is alive and the

one that isn't? And do you really care (I assume you must be

religious because you do care) how people see you if you really are

brain dead?

> I saw the video of those people playing with that woman, and it

> made me nearly sick. If anyone thinks that woman should have

> been left on " life support " (i.e., a tube stuck in her side,

> like a bile-producing bear in China), you should look up

> " Schiavo video " on the web and see that thing. It is SICK.

I have seen it. I've seen disabled people that were clearly

conscious yet looked very similar to Terri much of the time.

I don't want someone to tell my parents if they take a picture of me

while severely disfigured, disabled, brain damaged, or anything else

that they don't love me and that they should be ashamed of showing me

in public.

[Guest guest]

>

> Basically it shows that doctors think that their morals are above

> those of government ...

> The debate about whether or not the people really are better off

> dead is actually secondary.

Then there are two issues:

1. whether the doctors should be ignoring the law at the time it

exists. That's possibly two sub-issues, since a law could be

obsolete, and one has to decide what to do before the

legislature addresses a new circumstance. The second issue is

more direct -- whether one should act contrary to the law based

on one's moral convictions.

2. whether the law should be changed to reflect what the doctors

had been doing in some cases. That's quite apart to whether

it's moral for the doctors to act prior to the law having been

changed. The morality of the doctors acting contrary to law is

not especially relevant to whether the law should be changed.

What is relevant is, if there were no law in the first place,

whether the doctors would have been acting as society wanted.

[Guest guest]

>

> >

> > " If I am in a state like that, I'd like someone to punch a hole

> > in my abdomen with a trocar, and then stick a vinyl tube into

> > the hole ... Then repeat the process

wrote:

> .. let's say - for argument - that Terri was conscious

> and aware. Is her life worth less because she couldn't

> communicate? How do you tell the difference between the Terri

> that is alive and the one that isn't?

There were brain scans which could be compared to known brain

activity, but that's not the point. Clearly she was " alive "

because she was breathing and most of her life processes were

viable. The point is that if *I* were in such a state, I

wouldn't want to been kept alive.

To the extent that she was brain dead, it wouldn't have made a

difference. If she were in fact conscious (as opposed to a

" persistant vegetative state " ), then it becomes important to let

her die in peace as a sentient being. In a " persistant

vegetative state " , I suppose it makes no difference because she

would not be aware.

wrote:

> If it " festers " , then it was negligent medical care. Plain and

> simple. The solution is to fix the medical care, not kill the

> patient.

Same with my water filter hookup, but I wouldn't want those tee

connections and 1/4 turn shutoff valves sticking out from below

my ribs.

I don't know enough about trans-abdominal intubation to know if

this is a one-time procedure, but I presume the tube is changed

before the wound " festers " badly. I don't know if the opening

starts to fester and requires subsequent procedures. Obviously

if there is improper procedure, the procedure should be

corrected.

wrote:

> And do you really care (I assume you must be religious because

> you do care) how people see you if you really are brain dead?

I think " religious " applies to external views on termination of life. Religious

and non-religious people would care. Nobody says, I'm an atheist, so I don't

feel badly when someone suffers or when a loved one dies.

Another aspect is how my particular religious and cultural

beliefs affect suicide and in this case cessation of

extraordinary life prolonging measures. But that affects how

religious people care in terms of opinion regarding termination

of life.

There is a difference between the way someone looks with a

reasonable expectation of recovery and the way someone looks

when it is apparent that the possibility of recovery is

hopeless.

wrote:

> That aside, let's say - for argument - that Terri was conscious

> and aware. Is her life worth less because she couldn't

> communicate?

wrote:

> I have seen it. I've seen disabled people that were clearly

> conscious yet looked very similar to Terri much of the time.

Looking similar doesn't mean they are in the same state. I also

don't think that implies that their state is similar to that of

Terri.

wrote:

> I don't want someone to tell my parents if they take a picture of

> me while severely disfigured, disabled, brain damaged, or

> anything else that they don't love me and that they should be

> ashamed of showing me in public.

It depends. I typically don't show photos when I'm sick. If

photos of me in therapy were available, I wouldn't want them

published. Perhaps I'd not mind photos of my motorcycle

accident (which I hope never happens!) In the case of the

Schiavo video, I think the video was degrading.

- s

[Guest guest]

> There were brain scans which could be compared to known brain

> activity, but that's not the point. Clearly she was " alive "

> because she was breathing and most of her life processes were

> viable. The point is that if *I* were in such a state, I

> wouldn't want to been kept alive.

Why would you care, if you are right about her not being conscious?

So what if someone keeps your body alive, burns it, desecrates it, or

whatever else. I mean you wouldn't feel it, you wouldn't know it was

happening, etc.

> wrote:

>> If it " festers " , then it was negligent medical care. Plain and

>> simple. The solution is to fix the medical care, not kill the

>> patient.

>

> Same with my water filter hookup, but I wouldn't want those tee

> connections and 1/4 turn shutoff valves sticking out from below

> my ribs.

So, basically, you'd rather be dead then have any tube sticking out

of you? What if you were otherwise conscious and healthy?

I suspect your answer has nothing to do with the tube itself but

rather the kind of condition you assume is co-morbid with a tube.

> I don't know enough about trans-abdominal intubation to know if

> this is a one-time procedure, but I presume the tube is changed

> before the wound " festers " badly. I don't know if the opening

> starts to fester and requires subsequent procedures. Obviously

> if there is improper procedure, the procedure should be

> corrected.

Agreed. But you were using the emotionally laden " festers " despite

not knowing. That's the problem - people make assumptions, and even

if those assumptions are sometimes right, they are often wrong too.

> wrote:

>> And do you really care (I assume you must be religious because

>> you do care) how people see you if you really are brain dead?

>

> I think " religious " applies to external views on termination of

> life. Religious and non-religious people would care. Nobody says,

> I'm an atheist, so I don't feel badly when someone suffers or when

> a loved one dies.

I would agree that it applies to that too, but also to anyone that

thinks they would care (future tense) what happens to them once they

cease to be conscious. You fit the second category apparently.

> Another aspect is how my particular religious and cultural

> beliefs affect suicide and in this case cessation of

> extraordinary life prolonging measures. But that affects how

> religious people care in terms of opinion regarding termination

> of life.

There's a huge difference between " extrodinary life prolonging

measures " and feeding/hydrating someone. HUGE. I have no problem

with someone refusing truly extrodinary medical treatment or even

doing some things that may shorten their lives (taking large amounts

of pain medication for instance).

I do have a problem with helping people die and with not feeding/

hydrating someone who is otherwise able to survive.

> There is a difference between the way someone looks with a

> reasonable expectation of recovery and the way someone looks

> when it is apparent that the possibility of recovery is

> hopeless.

The problem is that we are human. How hopeless is hopeless? Even in

Terri's case, doctors debated this and disagreed (including doctors

who had personally examined Terri).

> wrote:

>> That aside, let's say - for argument - that Terri was conscious

>> and aware. Is her life worth less because she couldn't

>> communicate?

This is still a key question. It's the one that has people like me

worried, because we *can't* know for sure with the current level of

medical technology.

> wrote:

>> I have seen it. I've seen disabled people that were clearly

>> conscious yet looked very similar to Terri much of the time.

>

> Looking similar doesn't mean they are in the same state. I also

> don't think that implies that their state is similar to that of

> Terri.

I'd agree with that. However, do you really believe an HMO is never

going to terminate someone in one state but not the other, when they

may look very similar? Add to that the current trend of unresearched

end-of-life directives people are signing (on both sides - on my

side, do you want pain medication even if it may shorten your life

somewhat? On your side, do you want to be resuscitated after choking

on hospital food following a successful story?)

> wrote:

>> I don't want someone to tell my parents if they take a picture of

>> me while severely disfigured, disabled, brain damaged, or

>> anything else that they don't love me and that they should be

>> ashamed of showing me in public.

>

> It depends. I typically don't show photos when I'm sick. If

> photos of me in therapy were available, I wouldn't want them

> published. Perhaps I'd not mind photos of my motorcycle

> accident (which I hope never happens!) In the case of the

> Schiavo video, I think the video was degrading.

I would add that her parents, who showed the videos, felt she was

alive, conscious, and was being killed. They were not doing it to go

against abortion, assisted suicide, or anything else. They were

doing it because they felt it went against their daughters wishes and

was murder. If I had a kid, and believed (rightly or wrongly) that

the kid was being murdered, I'm sure I'd do anything I could.

That said, I don't find someone using machines are not mentally

" normal " to be offensive. I find the idea that people with different

ways of being shouldn't show themselves publicly to be offensive. (I

realize you are trying to draw a distinction, but I don't think your

distinction is clear enough yet)

[Guest guest]

At 03:14 PM 12/10/2005, wrote:

>I would add that her parents, who showed the videos, felt she was

>alive, conscious, and was being killed. They were not doing it to go

>against abortion, assisted suicide, or anything else. They were

>doing it because they felt it went against their daughters wishes and

>was murder. If I had a kid, and believed (rightly or wrongly) that

>the kid was being murdered, I'm sure I'd do anything I could.

The problem with that is that it wasn't up to her parents, it was up to

*her*, and her husband had proved repeatedly *in court*, not just by

walking in and saying " Judge, this is what she told me " but also by

bringing *her* friends, that she didn't wish to be kept alive in such a state.

Did you see the brain scans after? There was almost nothing there. Were I

in that state, I would not want to be a burden on my family and I do NOT

want a feeding tube, thank you kindly. I'm already physically disabled. I

would go insane if I were to be that limited, and I want nothing to do with

it. Nor do I want to be kept alive because my parents don't want to let go

of me.

Z

INTP

Generation X

68.44181% - Geek Goddess

Right. Okay, people, you have to tell me these things, alright? I've been

frozen for 30 years, okay? Throw me a freakin bone here--Dr. Evil

[Guest guest]

> Did you see the brain scans after? There was almost nothing there.

> Were I

> in that state, I would not want to be a burden on my family and I

> do NOT

> want a feeding tube, thank you kindly. I'm already physically

> disabled. I

> would go insane if I were to be that limited, and I want nothing to

> do with

> it. Nor do I want to be kept alive because my parents don't want to

> let go

> of me.

No, I did not see them. Nor would seeing them mean anything to me -

I can't interpret brain scans of any type.

So, if you were conscious, but would need a feeding tube to live,

you'd rather die? In all circumstances?

[Guest guest]

> The problem with that is that it wasn't up to her parents, it was

> up to

> *her*, and her husband had proved repeatedly *in court*, not just by

> walking in and saying " Judge, this is what she told me " but also by

> bringing *her* friends, that she didn't wish to be kept alive in

> such a state.

Oh, one clearification. I believe the issue of what she wanted was

not proved in court, nor really even made an issue - the issue

discussed in court was " Who has the standing to say what she

wants? " (also, both sides had friends of hers that agreed with their

side - this was not a case of everyone agreeing except the parents).

[Guest guest]

At 04:25 PM 12/10/2005, wrote:

>So, if you were conscious, but would need a feeding tube to live,

>you'd rather die? In all circumstances?

If there were no hope of my recovering enough function to live outside of

an institution, damn skippy I would rather die.

I feel very strongly about this.

Z

INTP

Generation X

68.44181% - Geek Goddess

Right. Okay, people, you have to tell me these things, alright? I've been

frozen for 30 years, okay? Throw me a freakin bone here--Dr. Evil

[Guest guest]

> At 04:25 PM 12/10/2005, wrote:

>> So, if you were conscious, but would need a feeding tube to live,

>> you'd rather die? In all circumstances?

>

> If there were no hope of my recovering enough function to live

> outside of

> an institution, damn skippy I would rather die.

Having a feeding tube has nothing to do with whether or not you can

live outside of an institution, even in our societies. Certainly

other conditions along with the feeding tube can result in that

(although they probably shouldn't most of the time - that's a society

problem).

The feeding tube wasn't why Terri was locked up for instance. She

could have had the same care at her home. But that aside, it's

possible to be even highly mobile and obviously (no gray area)

conscious with a feeding tube. (some people I chat with on an AAC

forum for instance use feeding tubes due to inability to swallow)

[Guest guest]

At 04:31 PM 12/10/2005, wrote:

>

>

> > The problem with that is that it wasn't up to her parents, it was

> > up to

> > *her*, and her husband had proved repeatedly *in court*, not just by

> > walking in and saying " Judge, this is what she told me " but also by

> > bringing *her* friends, that she didn't wish to be kept alive in

> > such a state.

>

>Oh, one clearification. I believe the issue of what she wanted was

>not proved in court, nor really even made an issue - the issue

>discussed in court was " Who has the standing to say what she

>wants? " (also, both sides had friends of hers that agreed with their

>side - this was not a case of everyone agreeing except the parents).

As I understand it, the questions of standing only entered when the parents

repeatedly tried to get the judgement overturned. According to Wikipedia:

>Beginning in 1998, Schiavo's husband and guardian Schiavo

>petitioned the courts to remove the gastric feeding tube keeping Schiavo

>alive; Schiavo's parents and Schindler fought a series of

>legal battles opposing . The courts consistently found that Schiavo

>was in a PVS and had made credible statements that she would not want to

>be kept alive on a machine

Not one but TWO separate guardian ad litems found that Terri Shiavo was in

a persistent vegetative state with no hope of recovery.

More on that decision:

>Schiavo's end-of-life wishes – Schiavo I

>

>Schiavo did not have a living will; therefore a trial was held during the

>week of January 24, 2000, to determine what her wishes would have been

>regarding life-prolonging procedures. Arguments from both sides of the

>issue were heard, with testimony from eighteen witnesses regarding her

>medical condition and her end-of-life wishes. claimed that Schiavo

>would not want to be kept on a machine with no hope for recovery. Her

>parents claimed that Schiavo was a devout Roman Catholic who would not

>wish to violate the Church's teachings on euthanasia by refusing nutrition

>and hydration. Judge Greer issued his order granting ’s

>petition for authorization to discontinue artificial life support for his

>wife in February 2000. In this decision, the court found that Schiavo was

>in a persistent vegetative state and that she had made reliable oral

>declarations that she would have wanted the feeding tube removed.[16] This

>decision was upheld by the Florida Second District Court of Appeal[17] (or

> " 2nd DCA " ) and came to be known by the court as Schiavo I in its later rulings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo

That all came first. Now, if I was in that state, no, I don't want a

feeding tube. I swear to God I'd rattle chains in the attic of anyone who

tried to keep me trapped in a body that didn't work. And since it's my damn

body and my damn life, I want my wishes to be honored, thank you kindly.

The problem with a case like this is that when you get it in sound bites,

sometimes you miss things. I read this stuff over carefully, and the

Wikipedia article is in agreement with the studying on the story that I

did, so I think it's reasonably accurate.

Z

INTP

Generation X

68.44181% - Geek Goddess

Right. Okay, people, you have to tell me these things, alright? I've been

frozen for 30 years, okay? Throw me a freakin bone here--Dr. Evil

[Guest guest]

At 04:37 PM 12/10/2005, wrote:

>The feeding tube wasn't why Terri was locked up for instance. She

>could have had the same care at her home. But that aside, it's

>possible to be even highly mobile and obviously (no gray area)

>conscious with a feeding tube. (some people I chat with on an AAC

>forum for instance use feeding tubes due to inability to swallow)

, that's absolutely untrue. I was a nurse's aide when I was 18, and

there is no way in hell Terry Shiavo could have been provided an

appropriate level of care at home, not without effectively turning the home

into an institution with three shifts a day of nursing staff. Anyone who

isn't ambulatory needs to be regularly turned and watched for bedsores, she

wasn't continent and would therefore require frequent linen changes and/or

catheterization... oh, I could go on. You clearly have NO idea the level of

care such a case requires. You are trying to draw a parallel between

autistics and someone like Terri, but in Terri's case, there wasn't

anything there. Go look at the wikipedia article I sent you. You, even as a

layman, can see her brain is NOT THERE.

Z

INTP

Generation X

68.44181% - Geek Goddess

Right. Okay, people, you have to tell me these things, alright? I've been

frozen for 30 years, okay? Throw me a freakin bone here--Dr. Evil

[Guest guest]

> The problem with a case like this is that when you get it in sound

> bites,

> sometimes you miss things. I read this stuff over carefully, and the

> Wikipedia article is in agreement with the studying on the story

> that I

> did, so I think it's reasonably accurate.

Please don't assume that I am regurgitating sound bites or did not

research this case.

Thank you.

(yes, I knew these things mentioned in the Wikipedia article and

elsewhere, and they do not change my opinion - I stand by my

statement that the issue of Terri wanting to die was never addressed

in court)

[Guest guest]

> , that's absolutely untrue. I was a nurse's aide when I was 18,

> and

> there is no way in hell Terry Shiavo could have been provided an

> appropriate level of care at home, not without effectively turning

> the home

> into an institution with three shifts a day of nursing staff.

> Anyone who

> isn't ambulatory needs to be regularly turned and watched for

> bedsores, she

> wasn't continent and would therefore require frequent linen changes

> and/or

> catheterization... oh, I could go on. You clearly have NO idea the

> level of

> care such a case requires.

I do know what this level of care requires. Please don't make

assumptions about me. And I've seen people who need this type of

care from outside the medicalization of this type of care.

It CAN be done without making a home an institution. 3 shift nursing

staff is not required for turning someone in bed, but even nursing

staff can function in a way which is not institutional.

It is possible for two people, presented with the same facts, to make

differing ethical decisions without making logical errors.

[Guest guest]

At 05:03 PM 12/10/2005, wrote:

>(yes, I knew these things mentioned in the Wikipedia article and

>elsewhere, and they do not change my opinion - I stand by my

>statement that the issue of Terri wanting to die was never addressed

>in court)

I am not following this in the least, . The guardian ad litem found her

to be in a persistent vegetative state--meaning no consciousness. And the

judge took the testimony of her parents, her husband, and a number of

others in her life, and found that she would not have wanted to be kept

alive in the circumstances she was in. How is that issue not addressed? It

seems to me it was the very first one they looked at.

Z

INTP

Generation X

68.44181% - Geek Goddess

Right. Okay, people, you have to tell me these things, alright? I've been

frozen for 30 years, okay? Throw me a freakin bone here--Dr. Evil

[Guest guest]

> I am not following this in the least, . The guardian ad litem

> found her

> to be in a persistent vegetative state--meaning no consciousness.

> And the

> judge took the testimony of her parents, her husband, and a number of

> others in her life, and found that she would not have wanted to be

> kept

> alive in the circumstances she was in. How is that issue not

> addressed? It

> seems to me it was the very first one they looked at.

No, they looked at " did the husband have the authority to act on her

behalf regarding medical decisions, including this medical decision? "

They looked at lots of minor issues, like " Is the husband abusing

Terri? " and " Is the husband violating gaurdianship laws. "

[Guest guest]

At 05:31 PM 12/10/2005, wrote:

>No, they looked at " did the husband have the authority to act on her

>behalf regarding medical decisions, including this medical decision? "

>

>They looked at lots of minor issues, like " Is the husband abusing

>Terri? " and " Is the husband violating gaurdianship laws. "

>the court found that Schiavo was in a persistent vegetative state and that

>she had made reliable oral declarations that she would have wanted the

>feeding tube removed

That seems like a pretty straightforward look at her wishes to me.

Z

INTP

Generation X

68.44181% - Geek Goddess

Right. Okay, people, you have to tell me these things, alright? I've been

frozen for 30 years, okay? Throw me a freakin bone here--Dr. Evil

[Guest guest]

>> the court found that Schiavo was in a persistent vegetative state

>> and that

>> she had made reliable oral declarations that she would have wanted

>> the

>> feeding tube removed

>

> That seems like a pretty straightforward look at her wishes to me.

I disagree with that interpretation. The " reliable oral

declarations " is a legal way of saying her husband had the authority

to represent her decisions. (there are valid reasons to disqualify a

guardian from making this decision - none were met according to the

court). Not that they weighed the evidence and Terri clearly wanted

to die if she was in such a situation.

[Guest guest]

>

>

> > There were brain scans which could be compared to known brain

> > activity, but that's not the point. Clearly she was " alive "

> > because she was breathing and most of her life processes were

> > viable. The point is that if *I* were in such a state, I

> > wouldn't want to been kept alive.

>

> Why would you care, if you are right about her not being

> conscious?

You're right, I wouldn't be sufficiently aware to care. If I

were aware, I'd want someone to have the presence mind to pull

the plug, so to speak. So if the parents (I think it was the

parents who put out the video) were correct in their assertion,

it would matter much more. 24/6.9 looking at the ceiling, and

0.1 watching my parents wave a flashlight in front of my eyes.

If (as I presume) she was in a vegetative state, then it only

relates to some sort of burial dignity for my body.

> So what if someone keeps your body alive, burns it, desecrates

> it, or whatever else. I mean you wouldn't feel it, you wouldn't

> know it was happening, etc.

True, at least in theory.

> > Same with my water filter hookup, but I wouldn't want those tee

> > connections and 1/4 turn shutoff valves sticking out from below

> > my ribs.

>

> So, basically, you'd rather be dead then have any tube sticking

> out of you? What if you were otherwise conscious and healthy?

Depends on the meaning of " healthy " . If my life was expected to

be a general continuation of the same, then I definitely would

be looking in the help wanted ads for " Pushing up daisies, no

experience required. "

> I suspect your answer has nothing to do with the tube itself but

> rather the kind of condition you assume is co-morbid with a tube.

Yes.

> Agreed. But you were using the emotionally laden " festers "

> ... and even if those assumptions are sometimes right,

> they are often wrong too.

Yes, but in this case, the re-intubation is just a graphic

description. That tube is definitely in there as long as she is

kept alive.

> There's a huge difference between " extraordinary life prolonging

> measures " and feeding/hydrating someone. HUGE. I have no

> problem with someone refusing truly extraordinary medical

> treatment or even doing some things that may shorten their lives

> (taking large amounts of pain medication for instance).

That's where I think most people stand...

> I do have a problem with helping people die and with not feeding/

> hydrating someone who is otherwise able to survive.

My point is that intubation is very much extraordinary. The

fact that the tubes are use to inject food doesn't change that,

IMO. It's still intubation.

Special measures do make sense, but not if the end result is

simply to maintain that person with no expectation of something

different.

> The problem is that we are human. How hopeless is hopeless?

> Even in Terri's case, doctors debated this and disagreed

> (including doctors who had personally examined Terri).

No reasonable expectation of recovery. " Reasonable " can vary,

but too often, family members are reluctant to say that " it

ain't gonna happen " when it comes to recovery. This was the

case with Ann Quinlin, a town, NJ woman who, upon

cessation of life support measures, continued to live (based on

reflexes) for several years. Regardless, there was no

expectation of recovery.

> > wrote:

> This is still a key question. It's the one that has people like

> me worried, because we *can't* know for sure with the current

> level of medical technology.

You don't " know " in the sense that there is a mathematical

probability of recovery, but that probability assumes that a lot

of what we are using for diagnosis is wrong.

> do you really believe an HMO is

> never going to terminate someone in one state but not the other,

> when they may look very similar?

This is currently the case with government subsidies, but if the

HMO making the decision is the issue, then I'd say take the

decision away from the HMO. Fortunately, I don't think HMOs are

making such decisions.

> On your side, do you want to be

> resuscitated after choking on hospital food following a

> successful story?)

Again, same issues. If the choking placed me in a " persistent

vegetative state " which in a way is what happened to Terri, the

answer is, " Place the 'don't resuscitate tag on my bed. " If you

see me gasping on a piece of tofu scramble at Autreat, please

grab me from behind and try to aim for those big windows in a

Heimlich manœuvre.

> I would add that her parents, who showed the videos, felt she was

> alive, conscious, and was being killed.

I think that was what was going on, and like to think that was

their concern.

> That said, I don't find someone using machines are not mentally

> " normal " to be offensive. I find the idea that people with

> different ways of being shouldn't show themselves publicly to be

> offensive. (I realize you are trying to draw a distinction, but

> I don't think your distinction is clear enough yet)

Yes, but it's not " enlightened " ; it's just natural to think of

people in terms of people and the " things " associated with the

people in terms of " things " . Perhaps it's easy for me to say

being in the patent profession, but I think most people also

think that way.

But the machine is only part of this. The fact that a person

needs a machine doesn't in itself qualify it as " extraordinary

measures " , even if the machine (like a pacemaker) is essential

for life.

- s

[Guest guest]

At 05:40 PM 12/10/2005, wrote:

>I disagree with that interpretation. The " reliable oral

>declarations " is a legal way of saying her husband had the authority

>to represent her decisions. (there are valid reasons to disqualify a

>guardian from making this decision - none were met according to the

>court). Not that they weighed the evidence and Terri clearly wanted

>to die if she was in such a situation.

I don't follow. The purpose of the trial was " to determine what her wishes

would have been regarding life-prolonging procedures. "

How do you get husband having authority out of determine her wishes?

Z

INTP

Generation X

68.44181% - Geek Goddess

Right. Okay, people, you have to tell me these things, alright? I've been

frozen for 30 years, okay? Throw me a freakin bone here--Dr. Evil

[Guest guest]

>

> How do you get husband having authority out of determine her wishes?

I don't. I get it out of other things I've read on the case.

[Guest guest]

Stan wrote:

>Yes, but in this case, the re-intubation is just a graphic

>description. That tube is definitely in there as long as she is

>kept alive.

I think it's a bad graphic to choose for the description you're

trying to create. A feeding tube is pretty run-of-the-mill these

days, I think. A few years ago, I watched a friend feed herself lunch

through her stomach tube. She had the tube because she was in

treatment for mouth/neck cancer and couldn't take nourishment through

her mouth. Although the treatment had unpleasant side-effects, she

was not dying (any more than all of us are all the time). The tube

was just part of what she had to go through to get past the cancer.

She's doing fine now, though the absence of saliva and the lingering

effects of radiation treatment still keep her diet more limited than

it used to be, and she lives with edema and higher risk of blood

clots. (I mention the long-term effects just in case anyone here

still smokes. The kind of cancer she got afflicts smokers almost

exclusively.)

Jane

[Guest guest]

At 06:10 PM 12/10/2005, Jane Meyerding wrote:

>I think it's a bad graphic to choose for the description you're

>trying to create. A feeding tube is pretty run-of-the-mill these

>days, I think. A few years ago, I watched a friend feed herself lunch

>through her stomach tube. She had the tube because she was in

>treatment for mouth/neck cancer and couldn't take nourishment through

>her mouth. Although the treatment had unpleasant side-effects, she

>was not dying (any more than all of us are all the time). The tube

>was just part of what she had to go through to get past the cancer.

>She's doing fine now, though the absence of saliva and the lingering

>effects of radiation treatment still keep her diet more limited than

>it used to be, and she lives with edema and higher risk of blood

>clots. (I mention the long-term effects just in case anyone here

>still smokes. The kind of cancer she got afflicts smokers almost

>exclusively.)

I think that if you want the treatment, you should have it. If you can

indicate you want the treatment, you should have it. But by the same

token... I watched a dear friend die of ovarian cancer. It was bad. Really

bad. She wanted to fight for every last shred of life, and she did, as was

her privilege.

Me, if I were in her shoes, I would have quit the chemo when the second

round failed completely. Because I wouldn't want to live like that. And

were I in Terri Shiavo's shoes, I would have been saying " No feeding tube " .

And that's the real issue. I'm not going to go out yanking feeding tubes,

but I also think that the person has a right to say what it is they want.

And I don't think that has any parallel to autism--it's one thing to

provide support to a conscious person who wants it, it's another thing

entirely to force it on a vegetable who isn't there at all.

Z

>

INTP

Generation X

68.44181% - Geek Goddess

Right. Okay, people, you have to tell me these things, alright? I've been

frozen for 30 years, okay? Throw me a freakin bone here--Dr. Evil