Occ-

Your argument stems from the fact that the third party (her husband) is a biased viewpoint in the matter, considering what he has to gain. I do agree with you here. But theoretically, if he had nothing to gain, would you still disagree with taking her off her feeding tube? I'm sorry, but I also see Jeb Bush being a little bit of a biased party, being somewhat of a hard-nosed Christian of sorts, as Renegade alluded to. What if an outside unbiased party mentioned that her husband had a right to take her off the feeding tube? Would you disagree with them?

Basically, what I'm getting at is somewhat different than what you are arguing: do you agree with keeping someone alive in a vegetative, comatose state with very little brain activity? I personally don't see this as humane whatsoever to the vegetable person. In this particular case, however, there is somewhat of a sense of cruelty - starving one to death. I think this is an interesting case to argue right to life questions.

Incidentally, I glossed over the article on CNN that said the lawyers believe what Jeb is doing is unconstitutional. Any merit to that that you know of?

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Occ- Your argument stems from the fact that the third party (her husband) is a biased viewpoint in the matter, considering what he has to gain. I do agree with you here. But theoretically, if he had nothing to gain, would you still disagree with taking her off her feeding tube? I'm sorry, but I also see Jeb Bush being a little bit of a biased party, being somewhat of a hard-nosed Christian of sorts, as Renegade alluded to. What if an outside unbiased party mentioned that her husband had a right to take her off the feeding tube? Would you disagree with them?

If he had nothing to gain than he STILL shouldn't have the right to determine her fate. If the patient did not make any prior indication that they would want to die in such a situation then the state nor a third party has the right to terminate that patient's life. The fact that there is so much incriminating evidence that A) the patient made no such claims that she would like to terminate her life and B) the husband is seeking that right for personal gain, simply taints the issue even further. Even if you're married to St. Theresa herself, your right to determine whether you live or die is YOUR decision and no others. If you wanted to die yet made no statements as such to establish that desire and you end up in a coma, tough shit. The state must err on the side of your right to life in the absence of credible determination of your intent.

quote:

Basically, what I'm getting at is somewhat different than what you are arguing: do you agree with keeping someone alive in a vegetative, comatose state with very little brain activity? I personally don't see this as humane whatsoever to the vegetable person. In this particular case, however, there is somewhat of a sense of cruelty - starving one to death. I think this is an interesting case to argue right to life questions.

Yes if that patient wanted to be kept alive in such a state for the hope of future medical breakthroughs, luck, or the hand of God himself lending help.

quote:

Incidentally, I glossed over the article on CNN that said the lawyers believe what Jeb is doing is unconstitutional. Any merit to that that you know of?

Not really clued into the specifics of the court proceedings. It probably is unconstitutional for jeb to act in the manner which he did, however, I think the court's earlier ruling was unconstitutional to give the husband that right to make such a determination.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

I get the funny feeling that the issue of religion is being interjected to taint the issue at hand. Remove religion in its entirety. If she and everyone around her is an aetheist the issue still stands that she should be kept alive.

Obviously the issue of "religion" should have no bearing on the legality or the morality of the decision, but I'm merely invoking religion as an explanation as to why Jeb Bush may be so eager to step in.

JW = Jehovah's Witness, people who generally have religious objections to having foreign substances put into their bodies (such as drugs including asprin), even in life and death situations, as a means of keeping their body "pure" or "clean". In the case of the infusion of blood from another human being into their own bloodstream, the objections are even more vehement. What I'm suggesting is that Jeb Bush's objection to this "mercy killing" is based less on his desire to see the law upheld, than on his desire to see his religious principles upheld (comparisons may be drawn between this case and the case of the Australian Christian politician - the member for my constituency as it happens - who succesfully repealed a euthansia act in another state that had been in place for some two years). I invoked the JWs, because I think that if it had been a scenario where the husband had rejected medical treatment for his wife on the basis that it contradicts their religious beliefs, Bush would be less inclined to step in and fight this battle (far be it from him to want to be wanting to appear to wage a war against the Christian religion).

Ultimately it's all speculation, of course, but I thought it was an intersting parellel to draw.

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Not really clued into the specifics of the court proceedings. It probably is unconstitutional for jeb to act in the manner which he did, however, I think the court's earlier ruling was unconstitutional to give the husband that right to make such a determination.

Ahh balance of powers at work.. makes me tear up inside

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Obviously the issue of "religion" should have no bearing on the legality or the morality of the decision, but I'm merely invoking religion as an explanation as to why Jeb Bush may be so eager to step in. JW = Jehovah's Witness, people who generally have religious objections to having foreign substances put into their bodies (such as drugs including asprin), even in life and death situations, as a means of keeping their body "pure" or "clean". In the case of the infusion of blood from another human being into their own bloodstream, the objections are even more vehement. What I'm suggesting is that Jeb Bush's objection to this "mercy killing" is based less on his desire to see the law upheld, than on his desire to see his religious principles upheld (comparisons may be drawn between this case and the case of the Australian Christian politician - the member for my constituency as it happens - who succesfully repealed a euthansia act in another state that had been in place for some two years). I invoked the JWs, because I think that if it had been a scenario where the husband had rejected medical treatment for his wife on the basis that it contradicts their religious beliefs, Bush would be less inclined to step in and fight this battle (far be it from him to want to be wanting to appear to wage a war against the Christian religion). Ultimately it's all speculation, of course, but I thought it was an intersting parellel to draw.

Ah ok, I understand your argument now. Yes it would be interesting to see similar parallels without religion involved. The blood transfusion bit would be a poor parallel however since the state cannot interfere with an individual's desires in that instance. However, I DO know that several states have prosecuted JW's or other religious extremists for refusing to let their children recieve medical treatment who later died from simple, curable conditions. So perhaps all is not hypocritical.

___________________
Retro ...

Youre right occrider, the woman isnt deciding, but we still have assisted suicide outlawed.

quote:

Originally posted by rizen Youre right occrider, the woman isnt deciding, but we still have assisted suicide outlawed.

I'm all for euthenasia as long as it is carefully regulated. I read a story a while back of its abuse in Holland. I think certain states (Oregon comes to mind) do allow euthenasia.

___________________
Retro ...

I feel that I must side with occrider on this one. If there was no prior indication she wanted to die in such a situation, then she should be kept alive. Especially because breakthroughs in cloning technology might soon lead to replenishing the destroyed brain regions. Besides, she is not experiencing any great pain or suffering so in lack of a better reason, she should not be killed, as she didn't made such a statement before. I'd say people should be forced to explain their positions on such matters to the government so that in case of such scenarios there wouldn't be any space for manipulation.

And yes, Jehova's witnesses are total morons and should be have their children taken away from them.

___________________
1+1=10

I currently work in a cancer hospital, and daily I am surrounded by families and patients having to make decisions about what to do in the case of this circumstance. I am also there to see what happens when a patient is allowed to live in a state such as this woman. I would first like to say that calling a person who has been in a vegatative state for 12 years "alive" by any real human standards is rediculous. By purley scientific means, yes she is breathing and going through "the motions." However medically speaking, being alive also includes normal mental function expected for the individual, which she has not had for quite some time.
Moreover, there are three fundamental pinciples that determine both the feasabilty of medical procedures and also the continuance of life in a coma used by medical professionals. First is reversiblity...would the continuation of a coma lead to a reversing of its state. Second is quality of life...would the coma somehow lead to a higher quality of life then at its onset. And lastly is cost...what is the cost to the family and to the health care industry.
I would have to say that looking at this rubric, there is no reason to continue with her feeding tube. There is no technology today, or in the forseeable future that will allow her to gain any semblance of normal human cognitive function. To use this "phantom" technology as a basis her continued existance is ignorant to the state and pace of medical technology. Her quality of life will therefore never improve, which at this point is respoding non-specifically (reflexively) to stimuli and performing lower level physiological functions (metabolic processes, defecation, etc.). And lastly the cost of keeping someone in this condition alive for such a period is incredibly expensive, further draining a health care system already drowning in its own costs.
This woman died twelve years ago, and I'm sorry people can't realize that. What is "alive" today is a set of organs. She will never, using the medicine of our life times, be able to gain any greater function than she has been able to in the past 12 years. I realize it is wonderful to "have hope" that she will someday regain consciousness and have a wonderful life. However this is the stuff of movies and science fiction, and I assure you does not happen in life, especially after 12 years.
I have seen more than my fair share of these individuals and it sickens me to hear debate on this. There is something to be said for having dignity in death, and this woman has been brutally robbed of it. If you feel that the feeding tube should continue I urge you to volunteer for a month or so at an extended care facility with patients in this condition. I would love to hear how you would then feel about this situation.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono I currently work in a cancer hospital, and daily I am surrounded by families and patients having to make decisions about what to do in the case of this circumstance. I am also there to see what happens when a patient is allowed to live in a state such as this woman. I would first like to say that calling a person who has been in a vegatative state for 12 years "alive" by any real human standards is rediculous. By purley scientific means, yes she is breathing and going through "the motions." However medically speaking, being alive also includes normal mental function expected for the individual, which she has not had for quite some time. Moreover, there are three fundamental pinciples that determine both the feasabilty of medical procedures and also the continuance of life in a coma used by medical professionals. First is reversiblity...would the continuation of a coma lead to a reversing of its state. Second is quality of life...would the coma somehow lead to a higher quality of life then at its onset. And lastly is cost...what is the cost to the family and to the health care industry. I would have to say that looking at this rubric, there is no reason to continue with her feeding tube. There is no technology today, or in the forseeable future that will allow her to gain any semblance of normal human cognitive function. To use this "phantom" technology as a basis her continued existance is ignorant to the state and pace of medical technology. Her quality of life will therefore never improve, which at this point is respoding non-specifically (reflexively) to stimuli and performing lower level physiological functions (metabolic processes, defecation, etc.). And lastly the cost of keeping someone in this condition alive for such a period is incredibly expensive, further draining a health care system already drowning in its own costs. This woman died twelve years ago, and I'm sorry people can't realize that. What is "alive" today is a set of organs. She will never, using the medicine of our life times, be able to gain any greater function than she has been able to in the past 12 years. I realize it is wonderful to "have hope" that she will someday regain consciousness and have a wonderful life. However this is the stuff of movies and science fiction, and I assure you does not happen in life, especially after 12 years. I have seen more than my fair share of these individuals and it sickens me to hear debate on this. There is something to be said for having dignity in death, and this woman has been brutally robbed of it. If you feel that the feeding tube should continue I urge you to volunteer for a month or so at an extended care facility with patients in this condition. I would love to hear how you would then feel about this situation.

Despite your experiences, you cannot speak for the woman's desires. She may have very well wanted to die incapacitated as she is, or she may have wanted to keep on fighting with some hope (************ of how feasible that hope is) until she's dead through natural means. Her parents are willing to bear the cost and anguish of care as evidenced by them telling the husband to simply divorce her and let them care for her. The day the state starts to decide the "value" of life and makes a decision for us in whatever incapacitated state we live in is a step backwards in the recognition of our intrinsic rights. It is not up to you to determine whether they are "too miserable" to live.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider until she's dead through natural means.

Natural means? Are we born with feeding tubes? There is nothing natural about being kept alive with a feeding tube. This woman died 12 years ago.