Euthanasia - should it be legal or illegal? (v2.0)

The previous edition has been locked, and the topic comes up into relevancy once again with the current Schiavo situation.

I am sympathetic to this woman's situation along with the suffering of her family.

However, I find it inhumane that she's been allowed to live like this for so long, especially if it was not her wish to do so. Removing the tube isn't active killing, it's the passive allowing of Terri to die by removing life support. It could be considered 'passive euthanasia'.

Unfortunately, Terri didn't forsee this happening and didn't get a living will. But, she told her husband she didn't want to live like that, and the husband is carrying out his wife's wishes. I understand the emotions of the family, but they seem simply to be unable to let go of Terri or let go of the hope that she'll get better (which she will not).

There is a huge difference between a cognitively aware quadriplegic and a congitively brain dead individual in a perpetual and irreversible vegetative state.

I am not a proponent of euthanasia, but I am also not a proponent of prolonging patients suffering when it is against their wishes.

If I were the husband, I would be at her side and take care of her for as long as she lives. However, I can't judge the man for wanting to carry out his wife's wishes.

Discuss.

 

The only question I have about it being her will to not live like she is would be that we don't completely know. Maybe the husband is lying? Maybe not, but since we cannot know, this particular situation is too gray for me to say clearly one way or another.

But in general, I am all for euthanasia as long as it is clear and practically unquestionable that the person will never recover. Simply put, there is much more to life then simply being physically alive. If I am not living my life, learning new things, experiencing stuff, interacting with other people, then I feel I am not truly alive.

 

If I were the husband, I would be at her side and take care of her for as long as she lives. However, I can't judge the man for wanting to carry out his wife's wishes.

Most women that are killed in this country are killed by their husbands. We can't take his word for it. It must be, IMO, a written document.

Besides, you wouldn't even starve your dog! Who'd do that to his wife?

 

She did not wish to live like that, at least according to her husband.

Would you want to live like that J-rod, if before you ended up in that situation, you said that you did not want life support to maintain you?

I certainly don't think you allow this to go on and on to a dog to begin with - to make the relevant comparison.

//sigh

I see things like this on a daily basis, and often it is more cruel to maintain the individual than to allow the natural process of death take over.

It's just a sad.. a very sad situation, indeed.

 

She did not wish to live like that, at least according to her husband.

At the same time, that husband was already seriously dating another woman within a year of her collapse, and has been using the $1 million settlement that he won for malpractice (and that he promised to use to pay for her treatment) to pay for the court case to let her die. He also has been living with and fathered two children with yet another woman while his wife has been in a vegetative state.

There are also allegations (that have not yet been investigated) that he may have been abusive towards her, possibly even causing her condition. While these are only allegations, is it really proper to take active steps to end her life on his word only, when these allegations have not even been investigated?

Just because he says that she did not wish to live like that does not mean that it is necessarily the case.

Kimball Kinnison

 

What you're speaking of is hearsay, KK.

The husband has final authority over the matter, at least according to the law.

Now, I didn't say the guy isn't an ass or anything like that for not living up to his vows, but I do think that the final decisions in cases like this should rely upon spouses. Hence, one should be damn sure on who one is marrying before one does it.

In the best case, Terri's husband should have made this kind of decision long ago instead of years later.

 

What you're speaking of is hearsay, KK.

At the very least, the allegations of abuse (based on her medical records) should be investigated. (Notice that I streesed that they are allegations, not proof). If they prove to be warranted, he should not be allowed to make that determination.

An investigation at the least is warranted, just as if the allegations were made about any other woman being abused. They should not be ignored.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Well, it's not going to happen in this case, because there is insufficient evidence to bring such a claim against Terri's husband. It probably exceeds the statute of limitations as well because it has been so long since such an (alleged) incident may have occured.

I'm not suggeting that the guy is an angel or even a nice guy, but he does have the legal right to make medical decisions for his (still legally married) wife.

I deal with similar situations all the time involving life and death, and who makes the ultimate decision to remove life support? Not parents. Not siblings. Not kids. SPOUSES get first consideration when one is married.

I had a personal situation involving a similar situation with a close relative, so I know how difficult this is.

Again, that is why one should be completely sure of the type of individual they are marrying and to get your wishes down notarized by an attorney.

Well, the tube is disconnected, and she will die in about a week from dehydration. She will not die of starvation.

I do believe this is a personal matter that Congress should not have gotten involved in, unless of course they wish to legislate some kind of new law on the matter.

 

At the same time, that husband was already seriously dating another woman within a year of her collapse, and has been using the $1 million settlement that he won for malpractice (and that he promised to use to pay for her treatment) to pay for the court case to let her die. He also has been living with and fathered two children with yet another woman while his wife has been in a vegetative state.

There are also allegations (that have not yet been investigated) that he may have been abusive towards her, possibly even causing her condition. While these are only allegations, is it really proper to take active steps to end her life on his word only, when these allegations have not even been investigated?

Wait wait wait, you're giving this guy a hard time because he moved on with his life? Should he have waited by her bedside even though she's a vegetable and will remain a vegetable for the rest of her life? Don't judge the man for doing what most people would do, and have to do, which is after a tragedy finding the strength to move on. How long should he have waited to get a girlfriend? In what timeframe would that become acceptable to you Kimball?

Personally, I don't think it matters whether she wouldn't want to live in the mental state she's in or not. None of us can even imagine what that would be like, and I doubt she even has the mental capacity to know what it's like now.

But the thing that really bothers me about this case is how they're going to kill her. Starving to death isn't my idea of a nice way to go. I wonder if she even knows when she's hungry? I would hate to think, even if it's just reactionary that she's thinking "food, food, food" for a week until she starves to death.

It's a very complicated case, but ultimately I don't think either the parents or the husband are in the wrong. I think they both geniunly want what's best for her.

 

She isn't going to die of starvation with the tube removed.

She will die of dehydration.

I stated this previously in this thread.

 

Wait wait wait, you're giving this guy a hard time because he moved on with his life? Should he have waited by her bedside even though she's a vegetable and will remain a vegetable for the rest of her life? Don't judge the man for doing what most people would do, and have to do, which is after a tragedy finding the strength to move on. How long should he have waited to get a girlfriend?

If Michael Schiavo wants to move on, he should divorce Terri; so in that way, her parents can have custody and take care of her, from now on.

 

She isn't going to die of starvation with the tube removed.

She will die of dehydration.

I stated this previously in this thread.






Makes it less painful, doesn't it?

 

Yes, actually, it does. Besides, pain control is palliative care's stock in trade. Morphine can do quite a bit.

 

The thing that gets me riled up about this case is: Terri's parents have offered Michael to be her legal guardians so that they can take care of her. But he refuses to divorce her or give up guardianship. He already has an established relationship with the other woman. He obviously has moved on. He obviously does not want anything to do with Terri. His insistence that she die, even after all this time is just sickening.

Terri is not having a machine breathe for her and is not terminally ill. This is not a matter of pulling a plug and her body stops breathing. This is about dehydrating a person to death. If there was a written document that she would wish to die in this state, fine. But all we have is her husband's word against everyone else. I think it would be the moral choice to err on the side of life.

 

If Michael Schiavo wants to move on, he should divorce Terri; so in that way, her parents can have custody and take care of her, from now on.

Brav-freaking-o. He's already moved on by having a relationship with another woman, which has resulted in offspring. If he really had the best interest of his wife at heart, he wouldn?t be degrading her status by screwing another woman and fathering her children. [sarcasm]Yeah, I?m sure she said at some point in their life she said she wouldn't mind that. Just don?t feed me if I can?t hold a spoon and swallow![/sarcasm]

If the man had sat by her all these years, not dating, not doing anything but taking care of her and now deciding it's time to let go, I would totally have a different perspective on the matter, providing the "letting go" time included some hefty doses of morphine or something. But that's not the case, they're just going to stop feeding her. We go balistic on people who starve animals to death. We feed felons on death row until their execution. WTF? To stop feeding Terri is not euthanasia, it's cruel and inhumane killing of a helpless person.

So, my heart goes out to her parents who must sit by and watch this adulterous schmuck cause their daughter to dehydrate/starve/whateveryouwanttocallit,itwon'tbequick to death. If it were say, my sister, I must say I'd have been much more meek about being told to "leave the room".

The right thing to do at this point is let her FAMILY decide. Screw the politicizing, screw the relgiousizing, screw it ALL. Her folks love her and want her to live and we have no documentation to speak otherwise. Let them let their daughter live.

 

But that's not the way the ethics works. Since In re: Quinlan (1976) the U.S. has wrestled with the right of individuals to refuse treatment or to withhold/withdraw treatment. In the nearly thirty years, there have been a number of misconceptions that the courts and ethicists have had to deal with.

First, a persistent vegetative state: the person is not aware of their surroundings. Any muscle movements (minimal) are not reactive to external stimuli - they are automatic movements. There is no executive cognitive capacity present; but there is enough regulatory cognitive capacity present to maintain homeostasis (hence the difference between PVS and brain death).

Second, the analogy to starving an animal is inappropriate - the body is not aware of its decline. We aren't starving or dehydrating people who are aware of being hungry or thirsty; hence the disanalogy.

Third, the right to forgo treatment involves a hierarchy of proxies - spouses get preference over parents over siblings and offspring. Her husband is the proxy, whether one agrees with that or not. While many states have an expressed interest in maintaining third party rights (parens patriae), they defer to the proxy. Even if he can't produce documentation of her wishes, he is the decision-maker law and philosophy recognize, as he is the "best" person to know her wishes and values. In light of his conduct, that may seem unpalatable, but that is where things stand. Neither Florida nor Congress has any right to interfere in that.

EDIT:

To stop feeding Terri is not euthanasia, it's cruel and inhumane killing of a helpless person.

No, it isn't. Active, involuntary euthanasia is a very different thing than withdrawing treatment, and there is a wealth of literature distinguishing the two. Check the Philosopher's Index on the matter (a search engine that catalogues every book, article, and dissertation in matters philosophical) or Lexus-Nexus.

EDIT 2 : speelng

 

At the same time, that husband was already seriously dating another woman within a year of her collapse, and has been using the $1 million settlement that he won for malpractice (and that he promised to use to pay for her treatment) to pay for the court case to let her die.

This just boils my blood. What the guy does with the money is his business. It is utterly irrelevant to the issue at hand.

He also has been living with and fathered two children with yet another woman while his wife has been in a vegetative state.

Yeah, so he moved on with his life. Shame on him.


The bigger issue here is government interference in areas of personal decision that it has no business getting involved in. This is a private matter, period. The husband I believe had Power of Attorney, and as such, if he communicated that her wishes were to be allowed to die, then they should be honored. If she had had a living will, then none of this would be any issue at all. The fact that Congress has gotten involved makes me ill. People are using emotion without knowing the facts to get publicity for themselves and their future re-election campaigns.

This "life life life" mantra that we use as an excuse to intrude into every aspect of people's lives simply needs to stop. This woman is a vegetable. She has no quality of life. Her husband has given us (IMHO) no reason to believe that he is miscommunicating her wishes. Any charge to the contrary is emotion-based hearsay and frankly, slander.

He is free to divorce her any time her pleases. What gets me here is that government has no authority (IMHO) to tell a person that they have to stay alive. Quality of life is an issue that is oftentimes ignored, and it shouldn't be. We have a very bad relationship with end-of-life issues in this country, and it's something that I deal with very often in our line of work. Now, I'm not saying that a patient's wishes shouldn't be honored, but if it were me, and I were in a persistent vegetative state with no hope of recovery, or I had a progressively and invariably fatal disease, I think I should be able to make the decision to call it a night.

The government can't make a better choice than I can, and frankly, I don't want them to. My life is not up to the government to spend or maintain.

It belongs to me.

Peace,

V-03

 

I really haven't made up my mind on this issue one way or another yet, but what I want is for someone to explain to me is why is it ok to euthanize a dog, who can't tell you whether or not they want to die, but its not ok to euthanize a person who CAN tell you that they want to die. I just don't understand how people can claim that there is a difference,because I don't see what that difference is, beyond the fact that we can't really guess what the dog is thinking.

 

She can't tell us right now that she wants to die. That's the problem, and last time I checked "she said...he said" didn't hold up as evidence on life and death issues?

To stop feeding Terri is not euthanasia, it's cruel and inhumane killing of a helpless person.

No, it isn't.

Yes, it is. Got an old, incapacited horse in your back yard? Stop feeding it rather than just having it put down, and see how long it is before the police show up.

Active, involuntary euthanasia is a very different thing than withdrawing treatment

Yes, it?s not nearly as bad. I?d prefer just giving the woman an OD of morphine as opposed to just discontinuing her 3 squares a day. (And by the way, how can it be both active and involuntary?)

And there is a wealth of literature distinguishing the two.

BFD. There?s a wealth of literature about a lot of things I don?t agree with because it's rationalizing bad behavior.

Yeah, so he moved on with his life. Shame on him.

Yes, shame on him for doing it before he tidied up his past. If he wanted to become romantically involved with someone else, he should have divorced Terri first. I know there is nothing legally binding about being engaged with someone else while being married to another, but at the very least it?s wrong because it?s insulting to the status of the current spouse, and wrong and dishonest to the new spouse-to-be, no matter what either of them knows of the current circumstances. Just because a woman doesn?t know her husband is cheating, or whether or not his object of cheating know whether or not he?s already married is irrelevant, it?s still breaking a contract and leading another on. As I?ve said, if he had divorced her first, it would bother me a whole lot less.

As for the whole quality of life issue: You decide right here and now what your limit is, and put it in writing. Short of anyone doing that, I don?t believe either the government or someone who has already broken a contact with that person has any right to make that call, and when neither are around to say so, ere on the side of life.

In this case, if she?s such a vegetable she can?t tell the difference between life and death, then what harm does it do to keep her alive? She?s not sucking off anyone who doesn?t want her to be, and she?s not hurting anyone, and she?s not suffering. Her parents, on the otherhand, will suffer a great deal watching her die. Let the people who have the cognitive ability to know what?s going on do what they think is best for them in relation to what they see and know about Terri.

This is a private matter, period.

On this, we agree. I just don?t see how under the circumstances of nearly everyone involved doing the wrong thing it could possibly stay one.

 

What do we subscribe to, a general social morality in deciding the fate of a person, or the persons wishes.

Chancellor_Ewok has made a simple but very effective challenge to this argument, negating the issues surrounding the motivations for the husbands decisions, we emotionally contemplate the fate of a terminally ill dog cat what ever. The vet suggests that euthanasia is in the best interest for the dog, why because it is suffering.

Social morality cannot be the basis to argue whether the individual has the right to end his or her life. The legal basis is flawed as well, as the state executes in numerous countries. This is not a debate over the death penalty moreover, wherever there is killing of others in order to secure a justifiable standpoint which allows people to kill other people then, the law and morality cannot be the justification in disallowing people to choose to end their lives.

Here the right of the individual is key, if the individual cannot speak for themselves, and that the inevitability of the individual is death then a board of sorts? rules on the treatment of this patient that includes the treatment for euthanasia.

I realise that a Pandora?s Box may be opened in allowing people to end their own lives, but ones own emotional misgivings, and the warped sense of justice and morality is not enough in justifying prolonged agony for terminally ill people.

Sincerely
Master-Aries

(MA)

 

I dont like the idea that the family wanted to interfere in the issue of marriage.

The bond between a man and a woman is sacred. when a man leaves his family he belongs to her and vice versa. I believe its not the parents right to interfere in the marriage.


And I was had an uncle who had a two million dollar life insurance policy on him as well. He broke his arm and sadly My aunt had to put him down.


But the house in Florida is really nice and great to stay on vacation.

 

Yes, it is. Got an old, incapacited horse in your back yard? Stop feeding it rather than just having it put down, and see how long it is before the police show up.

Totally irrelevant, and completely unlike the existence of a person in PVS. Having worked in medical ethics for the past five years, *and having made choices like this one* I can't stress to you more how wrong you are.

Yes, it?s not nearly as bad. I?d prefer just giving the woman an OD of morphine as opposed to just discontinuing her 3 squares a day. (And by the way, how can it be both active and involuntary?)

Active involuntary euthanasia (actively killing someone with an expressed desire not to die) is differentiated from active voluntary euthanasia (actively killing someone with an expressed desire to die), and withholding/withdrawing treatment.

BFD. There?s a wealth of literature about a lot of things I don?t agree with because it's rationalizing bad behavior.


It is a big deal, whether you choose to admit it or not. This is a serious issue, and law and ethics have wrestled with this for three decades in discerning what can be done, what should be done, etc. Your dismissal does not equate it to bad behavior - the Schiavo case threatens to upset thirty years of hard-fought legislation, judicial inquiry and assessment, and personal anguish. You clearly don't know how it is that we've come to this point historically, legally, or ethically, and your "shoot from the hip" mentality threatens to cause significant harm to a difficult and delicate issue.

EDIT:

Let me show you why "letting the family decide" isn't necessarily a good decision. This is a case I was involved in as a consultant.

An elderly woman was transferred to the ICU when she became unresponsive. By her history, she had several comorbidities, including diabetes mellitus with resultant peripheral neuropathy and peripheral vascular disease, hemiparesis on her right side, and a left leg BKA (below the knee amputation) secondary to her PVD. She had plateaued (she was getting neither better nor worse), and the family was asked what their preferences were, as she did not have a living will. Three family members arrived for the consultation, two sisters and a brother. The two sisters were diametrically opposed, and the brother was visibly intoxicated. One sister was her mother's caretaker for a number of years, but failed to recognize the symptoms of gangrene on her mother's foot - this condition culminated in the amputation. The other sister was a nurse; she was the one who recognized the gangrene and called for the amputation before it led to sepsis (a systemic infection of the blood). The caretaker sister was so incensed that they didn't speak for three years following the BKA. The nurse with the clinical background felt that her mother was trying to let go, and wanted to stop further treatment and code her mother as DNR. The caretaker sister wanted aggressive treatment and full-code status. The brother was compromised by the alcohol, so he couldn't really cast a deciding vote, and simply said he would go along with whatever the sisters decided.

The only evidence we had as to how the mother felt was a twenty year old story of how she reacted when another family member was incapacitated by an aneurysm and required ventilation. Families don't know what to do, and can want conflicting things, or want measurements done that *do* inflict pain upon patients (cracking ribs, electroshock, invasive surgeries, etc.).

Further, clinically we experience the "Returning Heroes" - the family members with little or infrequent contact who swoop into the ICU demanding everything be done for the family member in question. They want to rest easy knowing that "they didn't kill" their relative.

Medical ethics has evolved over the past thirty years precisely because of situations like these - we need to know what can be done versus what should be done. The only evidence we have is what the husband stated, and law and ethics recognize him as th

 

I think it will and should remain a hugely grey area and each case taken one by one, with regards to motive, previous documentation (or lack thereof) of one's wishes, and the wishes of the blood relative.

As just a step back observation, I find it's interesting, in all the debates, both her and and otherwise, that I've had on this topic how we all see it from the right of different individuals, and that's why so many disagree. Some side with the husband, some side with her parents, and some side with the overall "right to decide when to die" issue (it's kind of hard to say "side with Terri", short of any documentation, I think). I'm on the side of the parents, I guess because they are the people I could most put myself in place of. They must be going thru hell and feel like their rights, their right to want their daughter to live, are being ignored. I can try to put myself in Terri's place, but without a whole lot of cognitive ability, what I think or even if I do can't help me empathize... I don't even want to put myself in her husband's place - he's an adulterer and long ago broke any bond of spousal sanctity.

So I think from the POV of the parents...and I think I would kill anyone who tried to kill my kid. If she were simply in an abusive, adulterous marriage and I tried to rescue her because she's been so browbeaten and brainwashed she can't escape on her own, I'd be seen as upholding a noble cause.

Why should this be seen as any less? That is where I'm coming from.

 

Totally irrelevant, and completely unlike the existence of a person in PVS. Having worked in medical ethics for the past five years, *and having made choices like this one* I can't stress to you more how wrong you are.

Ah, so by the ethics you've so diligently studied it's perfectly ok to starve a concious person to death, but not a crippled horse.

PETA should be happy.

You know, I think sometimes people make things more complicated than they need to be. She's not suffering, and she's not hurting anyone and she's not sucking your tax dollars. Let her family take her home and take care of her until she dies. THAT'S THEIR CHOICE.

No one, NO ONE, has the authority to tell them what her quality of life should be. Let her FAMILY have the FREEDOM to decide that for themselves and for her, not the freaking GOVERNMENT or an adulterous ******* HUSBAND.

"Kill her because I think it must suck to live like that" just doesn't fly with me.

EDII to your edit: For what it's worth, I'm not a doctor or nurse, but I have worked in hospitals and nursing homes and seen people being kept alive on machines, so don't think I'm totally out of touch with the human factor here. That story is totally heartbreaking and nauseating. Nevertheless, I still think we should try to keep alive people who's family want to be kept alive unless they have specific documentation saying otherwise. That is why I said above "grey area...case by case". There just isn't black and white in such ethics. It all has to be within context of the situation and the truly concerned or drunken jackasses involved.

I'm only arguing Terri's case, I don't know of any others and might argue differently for them. Terri's parents should be allowed to let their daughter live and care for her as long as they possibly can. It hurts no one, including Terri.

I don't mean to be so abrasive, and I apologize for it...but this story stabs at me in ways even I don't understand. Maybe in a past life I had to deal with something similar...who knows.

 

Ah, so by the ethics you've so diligently studied it's perfectly ok to starve a concious person to death, but not a crippled horse.

SHE'S. NOT. CONSCIOUS.

You know, I think sometimes people make things more complicated than they need to be. She's not suffering, and she's not hurting anyone and she's not sucking your tax dollars. Let her family take her home and take care of her until she dies. THAT'S THEIR CHOICE.

It's not about my money or her extended families wishes. Law and ethics recognize that while their considerations are a necessary consideration, in teh final analysis, IT'S NOT THEIR CHOICE TO MAKE.

No one, NO ONE, has the authority to tell them what her quality of life should be. Let her FAMILY have the FREEDOM to decide that for themselves and for her, not the freaking GOVERNMENT or an adulterous ******* HUSBAND.

No one here is telling her what her quality of life should be. We're basing this on the only evidence we have, which is that she wouldn't want to live this way. Her FAMILY includes HER HUSBAND, and he has the right to make this choice ON HER BEHALF.

"Kill her because I think it must suck to live like that" just doesn't fly with me.

Great! I agree - but nobody here is arguing this.