What's our stance on Terri Schiavo and right-to-die?

[SeanQuinn]

#1: I hate the words right-to-die. It just sounds so eeeeeh, one-sided.

#2: Where do we stand? I am not as vulgar as saying 'SHE'S GONE!' but I do believe that the parents a) have no legal rights and b) she's pretty much dead.

[DemBones DemBones]

1. I agree that her parents have no legal rights but think

they have her best interests at heart. Her husband may have her best interests at heart, too, but I doubt that because he didn't make the claim that she would have wanted to die in her present condition until she had been in that condition for years.
If she had been so firm in her "let me die" statements, why didn't he remember it sooner? And why didn't she write it down or tell other people?

I don't think he's proved his case, based on what I have read, and that includes articles by disabled writers who have been in the courtroom and know the case in much more detail than I do. This is a case that concerns the disabled because it amounts to euthanasia for a severely disabled woman.

I come at this from the perspective of a Catholic who believes that we have a right to refuse extraordinary treatment to extend life when death seems inevitable, but that we have no right to end life deliberately, and from the perspective of a disabled person who sees how little regard many people have for the lives of the severely disabled.

Is Terri Schiavo "pretty much dead"? It all depends on your perspective and on the evidence you're presented with. The doctors hired by the husband say she's pretty much dead, the doctors hired by the parents say that she's not. The parents also say that the husband has refused to allow her to receive treatments that were suggested as things that might help her improve. Why has he done that and why haven't the courts, which awarded her money that he controls, made him spend that money on these recommended treatments for her? It seems to me that he has too much power and not the best motives. (He also has a girlfriend with whom he's had two children. He allegedly plans to marry her and she allegedly doesn't want to marry until they can have a big Catholic wedding -- after his wife dies.

Most people at DU seem to want Terri Schiavo to die because her life is being supported by pro-lifers, so she's essentially being condemned for the beliefs extraneous to her case that are held by some of the people supporting her parents' fight to preserve her life. I don't agree with some pro-lifers' conservative views, either, but I'm not going to condemn Terri Schiavo because some of the people supporting her are likely to be people I'd disagree with on other issues. There is a life at stake here, after all.

To oppose abortion or euthanasia is not politically correct at DU, while to oppose capital punishment or war is seen as noble behavior. I think that's no better than those who support capital punishment and war while condemning abortion and euthanasia. Both positions are inconsistent.

I'm a Catholic who believes in a consistent pro-life philosophy, the "seamless garment" of life, the "culture of life," which are phrases popularized by the late Cardinal Bernardin and by His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, and taken up by others, including George W. Bush, who only follow part of what those philosophies teach. I believe in the entire culture of life philosophy, opposing capital punishment, war, abortion, and euthanasia on principle.

[SeanQuinn]

4. Thank you for changing my opinion.

Now, I did agree with you on abortion, capital punishment, and war because in my opinion, a life is a life. God breathed that life into Adam and through Eve so that we may live.

With that being said, I can agree with you on abortion because as the Pres. Clinton said abortions should be "safe, rare, and legal." I morally as a person am against abortion (*gasp*) but do not believe that it should be made illegal. That would just create a frenzy in which women would rush to get abortions before the law was made banning them. As was said in the Houston Chronicle, during a Reagan and * Presidency, abortion rates do go up, while in a Clinton Presidency, they go down. Also, I believe that the government has no right to touch a woman's uterus.

War and capital punishment are just primitive. Period.

I was able to see your view on Terri Schiavo as well as I didn't really know a lot of the details. Thanks for clearing that up.

Sean

[XanaDUer]

10. You said it better than I ever could, DBDB

I despise the way the RW has made this a crusade, but I don't want her to die just 'cause I don't like or agree with the other team.
:thumbsup:

[etherealtruth]

11. I respectfully (and strongly) disagree

Your thoughts are expressed very eloquently; they are obviously deeply felt and borne of great reflection.

Both my education and experience lead me to very different conclusions than the ones you have reached.

I spent years working as a hospice nurse. It is notable that many on staff at our large organization were deeply religious (with a prominent Catholic presence as well as a significant fundamental Christian presence); the physician I worked with was a member of a Catholic religious order. The situation discussed here was not rare and was one we were all ethically in agreement with (it must be noted that the circumstances must be a persistent vegetative state with brain scans consistent with Ms.Schiavos).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

NO ONE is advocating euthanasia ... at some point there needs to be the right to refuse medical treatment (or have our advocates refuse if we are unable) and to allow natural processes (no intake of food or fluids) to take over, allowing the body to die. This is the general process that occurs when an individual dies of cancer, AIDS, emphysema... Why would one assume it is more cruel to halt the medical intervention (feeding tube) than it is to not initiate it? Sometimes it take time for the recognition of how grave a loved one's condition actually is. This is actually a very peaceful and natural process:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-me...

There is NOT a lot of disagreement within the medical community regarding Terri's condition; there are a few who disagree and insinuate that there is some "hope" or some mental or emoting processes going on. These had to be aggressively sought out by those wishing Terri to continue receiving the tube feeding.

These people are doing a horrific DISSERVICE to the parents of Terri Schiavo, they are preying on their grief and desperation in order to use them as pawns, promoting a particular ideology. I have no hostility toward the parents (as sometimes expressed on the DU) as they are unwittingly being used to promote someone else's agenda!

While the facts you give related to Michael Schiavo are true, they are presented in a distorted manner. Michael waited years before moving on, would it have been healthy for him to not to work through the grief and eventually move on? I would want my husband to, my brother to ...

It is reported that when questioned, 83% of the population unequivocally state that they would NOT want to be kept alive in Terri's situation, what are the odds Terri was in the 17%?

I have never met a person who has been involved in a situation like this, who has not STRONGLY expressed the wishes that this (prolonged intervention to be kept alive) NOT be done to them.

Whether you agree or disagree, are young or old, healthy or infirm ... make your wishes known (preferably in writing) to all the people who have a strong emotional stake in your life. ALSO, be positive the person you choose to advocate for you is willing to carry out your wishes (vs. their own beliefs or agenda).

[Beer Snob-50]

2. to be "pro-life"

in an intelligent manner means that you don't believe in using extraoridinary measures to end ones life. this includes abortion, capital punishment and unnecessary wars.

in this case, we are faced with someone who they are using extraordinary measures to keep her alive. if they stop these measures she dies. i think that would be god's way. i am sure he is thinking...."YOU KNOW GUYS, I DON'T WANT YOU TAKING LIVES AND WHEN I AM READY TO TAKE SOMEONE, DON'T DO ANYTHING TO SQUELSH MY WAYS!!"
(god talks in capitals by the way!)

[SeanQuinn]

3. I agree with you on that, I'd probably be a DNRer.

I think that it is God's way that if he wants us to die, we should not try to help ourselves to obstruct with God's plan.

[DemBones DemBones]

5. The Church and the disability community don't consider

a feeding tube to be extraordinary. It's just basic care: nutriments and water. People sometimes have feeding tubes for a time, improve, go back to regular eating.

If her prognosis was poor, if it was expected that she would die soon, and her husband had refused to start one in the belief it would have unnecessarily extended her life, that would have been a different issue. But he agreed to the feeding tube years ago and only now wants to stop giving her water as well as nutrition. Now, he is choosing to have her starve to death, whereas if he'd refused the feeding tube for her, she would not necessarily have died.

The Church says nothing can be done to deliberately end a life, whether it's an adult's, a child's, or a fetus's life. But it's understood that treatments carry risks and that if, for example, a pregnant woman needs a medical treatment to save her life, she should have it. If the treatment given the mother indirectly causes the death of her unborn child, that's not murder but a very unfortunate side effect.

Pope John Paul II spoke recently about cases involving denying food and water and said that was immoral and not an act Catholics are allowed to carry out. Terri's parents are maintaining that if Terri were aware of what the pope has clarified, she would not have wanted to be starved to death, even if she did say she didn't want to be kept alive by extraordinary means.

[hedgehog]

6. I think this is an example of hard cases make bad law.

With all the talks from either side regarding both supposed facts and suggested motives, I don't think any of us is in a situation to judge. If there is no chance of recovery, it's time to let her go. If there is, she deserves to be helped. The problem is determining whether she could recover. My gut feeling is that after 15 years, there's not much of a chance. As noted above, a feeding tube is entirely appropriate where there is a chance. To interfere with the dying process though, is an intrusion. My father had a stroke 18 years ago and made a full recovery. I think he may have been fed a liquid diet ( I was out of town after the first few days) and that was entirely appropriate. My grandmother with Alzheimer's stopped eating and died in her own bed under the care of people who loved her, bathed her and kept her as comfortable as possible the last years and last days of her life. A feeding tube would have been inappropriate. An uncle died at home several weeks after a diagnosis of liver cancer. Hospice assisted with pain relief and his children took turns sitting with him through the night. He would have lived longer in an ICU, but for what purpose? People often go through the ICU process at the end because no one can tell the outcome at the beginning of a crisis, but Hospice is my choice where the outcome is clear. We used to pray to St. Joseph for a good death. Maybe his feast should be an occasion to think upon what that means.

[Cuban_Liberal]

7. I'm deeply conflicted about this.

There's no way you can turn this case that a tragedy doesn't stare you in the face. On the one hand, I can understand the agony her parents must be going through, having seen in my own family the effect that the death of a child has on the parents; on the other hand, if the husband is telling the truth about what Terri said, then I can also understand his wishes.

What disturbs me most deeply, however, is that she is one of God's children, and if it were His will, would He not call her to Him, despite the medical efforts? None but God knows what goes on in her mind, and because she is not dying, the thought of withdrawing food and water from her now, after all these years, causes me to shrink in horror. I couldn't do it, not under these circumstances.

[hedgehog]

8. You're forgetting that people thwart God's will every day.

It's perfectly natural for a dying animal to stop eating and drinking, and we are animals too. It's wrong to hasten death, but that is different from allowing death to happen when there is nothing to be done. It's a gray area which is why each case has to be taken day by day on its own merits. The cancer patient who goes into the ICU early in the disease and survive to go into remission may opt not to if there is a terminal relapse several years later.

[Maeve]

9. I don't think I could do it either. However...

We have reached the point where it is possible to keep a body alive when there is no "thinking" capability. In previous eras, the person would have died naturally long before and the family would have been spared the limbo of the half-life existance. (Not thinking this case specifically, but speaking in general.)

That medical limbo is a very difficult issue, since it is not only psychologically and spiritually difficult but financially ruinous for many families. Because of this, I tend to think the matter must be dealt with by the medical team and the families involved and not have the legal system say "You must...."

[CBHagman]

12. This has been a troubling and highly divisive case.

A dear friend of mine just e-mailed me a copy of a letter to the editor she has written in support of keeping the feeding tube in place. She comes to her beliefs very sincerely, as a devout Christian (and generally progressive on political issues), but I don't know what, if anything, to write back.

The older I get, the more I see these cases in shades of grey. When I was 15, I would have said life must be preserved at all costs. Now I realize there people making painful decisions all the time about what to do regarding loved ones in severe physical decline.

I'm also at the point where one of my nightmares is to be simply hooked up to a machine and left in a hospital bed somewhere. For all that I want to stay alive as long as possible, I no longer want extraordinary measures taken.

What's choosing to end a life? What's interfering with natural death? The lines seem blurrier to me now.

One of my big beefs about the Catholic Church's stance on contraception is their seeming failure to acknowledge that human beings interfere with the start and end of life virtually every day. War, executions, neglect, failure to provide food and services -- surely those are sins in the church's eyes, too.

Thousands of people die due to preventable illnesses and the like virtually every day, and yet I see no special vote of the U.S. Congress to provide anti-dehydration treatment to every small child who needs it, and I see no effort made to guarantee, for instance, universal prenatal care and well-baby care. You'd think that would occur to the people who are calling for Terry Schiavo's feeding tube to be kept in.

But the cameras are not rolling when those thousands of unnamed people die.