Support NeoGAF

[hippie]

they've been trying to keep the government out of this. By law, the husband is her legal guardian and has wanted to pull the plug. HEr family is the one wanting to get congress involved.

I'm not sure quite how to look at this. I'd say, as fucked up as it sounds, to keep her alive. She doesn't have a living will so as long as they can keep her alive, they might as well. There IS a teenie tiny chance she could somewhat recover or they might find out she understands more of what's going on around her than the doctors think. Look at what they found out about coma patients. Yes, the chances are slim, but also somewhat irrelevant. She never made a living will (which exists for JUST this purpose), so let her live her life out as a vegetable. They really don't have a legal basis for forcing them to pull the plug.

 

[Incognito]

I'm not sure quite how to look at this. I'd say, as fucked up as it sounds, to keep her alive. She doesn't have a living will so as long as they can keep her alive, they might as well. There IS a teenie tiny chance she could somewhat recover or they might find out she understands more of what's going on around her than the doctors think. Look at what they found out about coma patients. Yes, the chances are slim, but also somewhat irrelevant. She never made a living will (which exists for JUST this purpose), so let her live her life out as a vegetable. They really don't have a legal basis for forcing them to pull the plug.

Her husband doesn't want her suffering anymore, though. It's in his right to render decisions concerning whether she should still recieve medical care during times like these.

 

[GLoK]

Fuck I hate fundies.

 

[hippie]

Her husband doesn't want her suffering anymore, though. It's in his right to render decisions concerning whether she should still recieve medical care during times like these.

Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't he have to prove whether or not removing the feeding tube was her will? She never made herself clear so that's what this whole debate is over, yes? Frankly, the thought of the government intervening and pulling the plug scares me. It puts personal patient decisions in the hands of people that should not be making those decisions.

You want to save your family and friends the problems this case has caused. Do a living will. Simple, clear, and no question about your intentions.

 

[xsarien]

Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't he have to prove whether or not removing the feeding tube was her will?

Show me a person who'd willingly volunteer to live in a vegetative state for close to two decades, and I'll show you someone whose sadism runs so deep, that he/she would want to put their family and friends through as much pain as possible.

 

[teh_pwn]

She expressed her desire to not live as a vegetable with her husband. Her autonomy should be respected.

It's been 15 years, she cannot improve.

 

[hippie]

Show me a person who'd willingly volunteer to live in a vegetative state for close to two decades, and I'll show you someone whose sadism runs so deep, that he/she would want to put their family and friends through as much pain as possible.

Then I sincerely hope that you and every other individual out there (I have), goes out and does a living will so they can save their families these problems. That's precisely why they exist. People HAVE recovered from these vegetative states before (not likely in this case), and I REALLY don't like the idea of the government, or the husband, overstepping their bounds and speaking on behalf of the patient. It isn't either of their decisions.

You have to look beyond this one case and think about the far-reaching implications of it. No good will come of this.


EDIT

The husband can't "prove" she said this. If it really was her desire, she would have stated it in a living will. Personally I think he's full of it, although probably doing what "he" feels is best for her.

 

[teh_pwn]

Fuck I hate fundies.

I totally agree. They've ruined the Republican party.

They take a quick politically polarized view of a serious issue, and make severe judgements and accusations, and in this case Bioethics. Who the hell do these people think they are?

 

[shoplifter]

I love how the 'sanctity of marraige' goes right out the door when the fundies don't like it. What happened to this guy's right to make decisions on her behalf if she couldn't? Ya know the part of marraige that lets him DO THAT?

The woman is missing half of her brain now, she's never going to recover from this as much as I'd like her to.

 

[jett]

Man, just let the poor woman die in peace. This whole thing is really sad...and the government wanting to interfere is just freaking scary.

FYI, the parents are catholics(according to the article previously posted), not christian fundamentalists.

 

[Hitokage]

People HAVE recovered from these vegetative states before (not likely in this case)

Just to clarify, you aren't confusing a coma with a vegetative state, are you?

 

[shoplifter]

FYI, the parents are catholics(according to the article previously posted), not christian fundamentalists.

But the majority of the rest of the folks bitching the loudest about this are fundies.

 

[hippie]

Just to clarify, you aren't confusing a coma with a vegetative state, are you?

No, there have been quite a few recoveries and well as quite a few disdiagnosis as well. This includes people who have recovered YEARS after they were diagnosed as vegetables.

Don't get me wrong, 1,000,000 to 1 odds Terri is a goner. It's a terrible situation but I would rather keep her alive than deal with the consequences of government intervention. This goes FAR FAR beyond this one case.

 

[Dilbert]

It's a terrible situation but I would rather keep her alive than deal with the consequences of government intervention.

That makes no sense -- government intervention is what's keeping her alive, and it's inappropriate.

 

[brooklyngooner]

Then I sincerely hope that you and every other individual out there (I have), goes out and does a living will so they can save their families these problems. That's precisely why they exist. People HAVE recovered from these vegetative states before (not likely in this case), and I REALLY don't like the idea of the government, or the husband, overstepping their bounds and speaking on behalf of the patient. It isn't either of their decisions.

You have to look beyond this one case and think about the far-reaching implications of it. No good will come of this.


EDIT

The husband can't "prove" she said this. If it really was her desire, she would have stated it in a living will. Personally I think he's full of it, although probably doing what "he" feels is best for her.

You're wrong on two counts: one, it is his legal responsibility. And he and others have testified under oath as to her wishes in this case. Two, the government isn't interceding to have her tube removed. They're interceding to force it to remain. They're overstepping their bounds in not allowing her feeding tube removed as the courts have ordered.

 

[Drensch]

I thought that the GOP didn't want big government dictating peoples lives.

 

[teh_pwn]

That's where their fundamental christian values come in to override the knowledge of bioethicist and scientists, and then have it hurdle over existing laws to be enforced on all people.

 

[hippie]

That makes no sense -- government intervention is what's keeping her alive, and it's inappropriate.

The government is intervening by forcing the removal, unlawfully, of the feeding tube. The husband, nor the government, can prove that death is what she wishes so she must remain alive.

 

[hippie]

You're wrong on two counts: one, it is his legal responsibility. And he and others have testified under oath as to her wishes in this case. Two, the government isn't interceding to have her tube removed. They're interceding to force it to remain. They're overstepping their bounds in not allowing her feeding tube removed as the courts have ordered.

The problem is proof that she said this. Somehow, I'm inclined to believe that someone who truly wished this, would have taken the steps necessary to ensure it happened. Secondly, the husband has NO right to her body. Patient rights trump his "wishes".

 

[Archaix]

The government is intervening by forcing the removal, unlawfully, of the feeding tube. The husband, nor the government, can prove that death is what she wishes so she must remain alive.

Well now you're just intentionally staying ignorant.

The court cases have been the parents trying to force him to keep the feeding tube. The "government"(in the form of the Senate Health Committee), as stated in the article, also wants to do this.

 

[brooklyngooner]

The government is intervening by forcing the removal, unlawfully, of the feeding tube. The husband, nor the government, can prove that death is what she wishes so she must remain alive.

I'm baffled as to what you're arguing. If you're arguing that you feel this removal is morally wrong, then of course that is your right to feel so and I respect that. But you seem to be arguing that the removal of this feeding tube is somehow illegal. On this point you're misinformed as well as to what the government's role is here. There was not a legal problem with this removal until her parents challenged it (legally). It has been through the courts and appeals process countless times, with countless new motions and testimony. It is the courts, not the government, that have ordered this tube removed. The Supreme Court has declined twice to hear this appeal. The government has stepped in to attempt to prevent this tube from being removed, far overstepping legal bounds. The legal question at issue is not whether he has the right to remove the tube but whether she is in a persistent vegetative state, and he has consistently proven via her doctors' testimony that this is the case.

 

[The Shadow]

People HAVE recovered from these vegetative states before (not likely in this case),

Name one. Just one.

 

[Kobun Heat]

By the way, if you're going to argue this you should at least know what's actually going on. She's not being kept on "life support" like a ventilator or whatnot. She is alive and breathes on her own. She's awake and is kept on a feeding tube. She's not suffering now, but now that the tube is out she's going to slowly starve to death over a period of about two weeks.

 

[teiresias]

Name one. Just one.

Well, judging by his arguments hippie is apparently able to post on GAF from a vegetative state.

 

[Deleted member 1159]

No, there have been quite a few recoveries and well as quite a few disdiagnosis as well. This includes people who have recovered YEARS after they were diagnosed as vegetables.

Don't get me wrong, 1,000,000 to 1 odds Terri is a goner. It's a terrible situation but I would rather keep her alive than deal with the consequences of government intervention. This goes FAR FAR beyond this one case.

So you going to back this up with something or just continue making things up? There has never been a recovery from a prolonged vegetative state

 

[hippie]

Well now you're just intentionally staying ignorant.

The court cases have been the parents trying to force him to keep the feeding tube. The "government"(in the form of the Senate Health Committee), as stated in the article, also wants to do this.

The problem lies where the husband is speaking on her behalf. Only with the courts blessings was he able to attempt to pull the plug. Unless I'm completely ignorant of Florida law, I know my state has laws in place where the patient's legal guardian (or whatever), can with two doctors diagnosis of being a vegetable, pull the plug and end the patients life UNLESS the family steps in and says otherwise. Or, of course, they have a living will. The husband never had a legal basis for taking out the tube in the first place.

By the way, if you're going to argue this you should at least know what's actually going on. She's not being kept on "life support" like a ventilator or whatnot. She is alive and breathes on her own. She's awake and is kept on a feeding tube. She's not suffering now, but now that the tube is out she's going to slowly starve to death over a period of about two weeks.

Yes, I realize that. She ONLY requires the feeding tube to survive, hardly life support at all. I like to use "pulling the plug" if that was confusing you? And yes, I have followed this case, but not as much as some. From what I do know, the husband was not in the right.

As for the examples of people recovering from vegetative states, a quick search on google should find you sufficient examples.

 

[hippie]

http://www.braininjury.com/coma.html

This goes into the vegetative state towards the end and shows their survival rate after a certain number of years. This is not even counting the number of misdiagnosis which numbers I think you'd find are quite high. And like I've said an un-told number of times, it would take nothing short of a miracle for Terri to pull out of this. "Terri" is not the point, it's patients rights.

 

[brooklyngooner]

The problem lies where the husband is speaking on her behalf. Only with the courts blessings was he able to attempt to pull the plug. Unless I'm completely ignorant of Florida law, I know my state has laws in place where the patient's legal guardian (or whatever), can with two doctors diagnosis of being a vegetable, pull the plug and end the patients life UNLESS the family steps in and says otherwise. Or, of course, they have a living will. The husband never had a legal basis for taking out the tube in the first place.

Now you're even contradicting yourself. He can, as her legal guardian with two doctors, legally remove her tube, unless the parents challenge it, but he has no legal basis for it?

On the most basic of levels, don't you think if there were no legal basis for it this would have been thrown out on first go and her tube ordered kept in? By the way the judge who keeps ordering her tube removed is a self-admitted conservative.

 

[teiresias]

Yes, I realize that. She ONLY requires the feeding tube to survive, hardly life support at all.

I hardly find this a compelling argument. People frequently ONLY require a ventilator, or they ONLY require a dialysis machine - "hardly life support at all." At which point do you term something no longer life support? The machine is performing a bodily function she is no longer capable of performing herself.

You can try and be all sensationalist by saying "they're letting her starve," but if she were on a ventilator (one of the more "traditional" forms of life-support) someone could just say "you're letting them suffocate" or in the case of a dialysis machine "you're letting them be overrun with toxins" (or whatever the associated condition would be).

 

[Ill Saint]

The tube's gone. Why keep up this polemic when it really doesn't matter anymore? (unless it's re-inserted again).

 

[brooklyngooner]

The tube's gone. Why keep up this polemic when it really doesn't matter anymore? (unless it's re-inserted again).

Because there's a very good chance it will be re-inserted.

 

[hippie]

Because there's a very good chance it will be re-inserted.

It won't be re-inserted.

On the surface, it's a good thing. I just don't like where this leads.

 

[teiresias]

It won't be re-inserted.

On the surface, it's a good thing. I just don't like where this leads.

I'm sorry, but the court battle has been perfectly legitimate. The process that is questionable and leads into bad territory is when the state government tries to pass legislation to selectively negate court rulings, and now the federal government attempting to pass legislation to basically do the same thing, and the federal government is also trying to use procedural rules to influence personal medical decisions. How you can say the court decisions are the problem here is an absolute mystery.

 

[ManaByte]

By the way, if you're going to argue this you should at least know what's actually going on. She's not being kept on "life support" like a ventilator or whatnot. She is alive and breathes on her own. She's awake and is kept on a feeding tube. She's not suffering now, but now that the tube is out she's going to slowly starve to death over a period of about two weeks.

Exactly. And normally, if you starve someone to death and they die, you'd be convicted of MURDER.

 

[teiresias]

see my reply to that above

 

[ShadowRed]

Exactly. And normally, if you starve someone to death and they die, you'd be convicted of MURDER.

You fail to make the distinction between the legal right of a custodian to discard their duties to their judgment, and someone unwillingly having their life taken. If that's the case then there are hundreds if not thousands of murders running around calling themselves doctors, because they have removed ventilators or taken people of dialysis machines at the request of their guardians.

 

[ManaByte]

You fail to make the distinction between the legal right of a custodian to discard their duties to their judgment, and someone unwillingly having their life taken. If that's the case then there are hundreds if not thousands of murders running around calling themselves doctors, because they have removed ventilators or taken people of dialysis machines at the request of their guardians.

See, you brought up ventilators and dialysis machines. She can breathe on her own, she isn't attached to a ventilator. If you take someone off a ventilator, they die rather quickly. Instead, here she's being taken off a feeding tube and will slowly starve to death.

 

[teiresias]

See, you brought up ventilators and dialysis machines. She can breathe on her own, she isn't attached to a ventilator. If you take someone off a ventilator, they die rather quickly. Instead, here she's being taken off a feeding tube and will slowly starve to death.

This is reply of mine is on this very page, but I'll post it again since it deals directly with this point:

I hardly find this a compelling argument. People frequently ONLY require a ventilator, or they ONLY require a dialysis machine - "hardly life support at all." At which point do you term something no longer life support? The machine is performing a bodily function she is no longer capable of performing herself.

You can try and be all sensationalist by saying "they're letting her starve," but if she were on a ventilator (one of the more "traditional" forms of life-support) someone could just say "you're letting them suffocate" (ADDITION: hardly any less painful than starvation IMO, but I've always had a fear of choking or drowning, so that's probably just me) or in the case of a dialysis machine "you're letting them be overrun with toxins" (or whatever the associated condition would be).

 

[ShadowRed]

See, you brought up ventilators and dialysis machines. She can breathe on her own, she isn't attached to a ventilator. If you take someone off a ventilator, they die rather quickly. Instead, here she's being taken off a feeding tube and will slowly starve to death.

Wait to get this straight, your problem is that she will die slower than quick? For the record I agree it sucks that she will starve to death for a week or 2, but that's the only difference between any other time a guardian removes someone under their care from medical machines. unless you have a problem with removing any machine that gives life sustaining assistance, then the only solution to this problem if for assiste suicide to be legalized. If it were then the doctors could put her out of her misery faster than the 2 weeks it will take her to go on her own.

 

[xsarien]

The government is intervening by forcing the removal, unlawfully, of the feeding tube. The husband, nor the government, can prove that death is what she wishes so she must remain alive.

Nothing is being forced. If anything, the court's ruling is affirming the wishes and recommendations of countless medical personnel, and her husband. Passing legislation to take away the rights of her husband and the doctors caring for her, THAT is government intervention.

 

[slayn]

perhaps I was mis-informed but at the time of writing a philosophy paper ~3 years ago no person in the history of earth had ever recovered from being brain dead. Ever.

 

[3phemeral]

See, you brought up ventilators and dialysis machines. She can breathe on her own, she isn't attached to a ventilator. If you take someone off a ventilator, they die rather quickly. Instead, here she's being taken off a feeding tube and will slowly starve to death.

But breathing is controlled by the brain-stem, as many other involuntary functions that we don't have to think about. She doesn't have to have a dialysis machine or a ventilator because the brain stem isn't affected in this case, she's still brain dead, though. How is this evidence that this isn't quite the traditional definition of "life support"?

 

[GLoK]

See, you brought up ventilators and dialysis machines. She can breathe on her own, she isn't attached to a ventilator. If you take someone off a ventilator, they die rather quickly. Instead, here she's being taken off a feeding tube and will slowly starve to death.

So you're okay if someone is taken off of a Dialysis machine then? By your own words?

My grandmother willingly ceased her Dialysis treatment when she was diagnosed with Terminal cancer. It took 5 days. Not quite 2 weeks, but I'd like to see anyone say "well this is going rather quick" during a 5 day death.

 

[homerhendrix]

Not to sound ignorant but does anyone know what put her in this "vegitative" state in the first place?

 

[homerhendrix]

So was it some kind of medical problem that caused the heart to stop beating or just freak of nature kind of thing?

 

[AntoneM]

because I like to enlarge issues...

for those that want the feeding tube to be put back are you willing to support her and anyone else like her with your tax dollars?

 

[SKluck]

Feeding tubes and breathing machines are inhumane IMO. On a temporary basis I can understand, but when you call that a permanent solution to keep a person alive, you're fighting inevitability and fate.

 

[mrroboto]

this whole thing just sucks.

also, it's a good lesson for getting your will in order and actually *having* one.

none of this would have happened had there been a written will. (well, i guess the will could have been contested but it's doubtful it would have lasted this long)

as soon as my wife and i had kids, we made damn sure to get our wills written up by our lawyer.

anyways, such a sad, sad case. no winners here at all.

 

[sc0la]

cruel and innappropriate joke:

Spoiler

Eating disorder? That feeding tube must be like a personal hell.

 

[hippie]

CNN poll today......

Would you want your relatives to remove the feeding tube if you were in a persistent vegetative state?

Yes- 88% (48118 votes)
No- 12% (6519 votes)

Total= 54637 Votes