GENERAL_SLAYER Posted March 31, 2005 Report Posted March 31, 2005 Everyone Must of heard The Big news about the Feeding Tube!-What do you think should of happened?-now she is starving to death
Aileron Posted March 31, 2005 Report Posted March 31, 2005 Well, I don't see why the doctors had to listen to the courts. They really have the right to do whatever they want in this matter and !@#$%^&* the courts. I started with the opinion of letting her die. I've seen cases where saving the patient's life is hopeless and found out the hard way that the best thing to do in these cases is let go. However, after reading some editorials written by physicians, I realised that that is not this case. Shiavo was in stable condition and with therapy could eventually improve, even if not entirely recover. She was awake, and the point of giving up is where the patient is unconcious. Death by removal of feeding tube is sick. If the judges had any guts at all, they would order death by morphine injection, something quick and painless rather than watching her starve to death for two weeks.
Zeke Posted March 31, 2005 Report Posted March 31, 2005 That really pisses me off, Yahoo News. I still say, that the family of a wedded spouse deserves more call tan the spouse who wants that person to die. Her blood is on all the hands of her windower husband and the judges who would proclaim it's in the law to starve someone to death, if their wedded one so wished. Not even death row inmates would be starved to death. Way to go! Not bad for a country who would always claim to put life first. - Z
50% Packetloss Posted March 31, 2005 Report Posted March 31, 2005 Like you !@#$%^&*holes give a !@#$%^&*. It makes for better TV if she does die so I don't give a !@#$%^&* either way. The only thing that pisses me off is that congress got involved. !@#$%^&*, they should go back to doing nothing, I don't see why congress even tries. But seeing how miss informed all you clowns are here is all the information you'll ever want to knowhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_schiavo Aileron, there are a lot of quacks out there, and they are the ones that write editorials. Inform yourself above and relize that she is a !@#$%^&*ing vegtable. Here is a good source for you my gullible friend, http://mediamatters.org/
GENERAL_SLAYER Posted March 31, 2005 Author Report Posted March 31, 2005 well they should maybe sue? I mean no matter which way you put it its MURDER...-gs
50% Packetloss Posted March 31, 2005 Report Posted March 31, 2005 WOW WOW WOWFound something great for you Generalhttp://www.foxblocker.com/ Time to stop being a !@#$%^&*.
MonteZuma Posted March 31, 2005 Report Posted March 31, 2005 Yeah. She was a vegetable and the evidence is pretty strong that she didn't want to be kept alive like that. The family let their religious beliefs intefere with their daughter's wish to be allowed to die. It is kind of disappointing that the parents said that they wanted her kept "alive" at all costs, even if that meant amputating her arms and legs, and yet they weren't prepared to have her in their home because she was too much of a burden. If you want to spout high christian principles and claim that they supercede your own daughter's wishes then you ought be prepared to act on your beliefs and not just dump her in a hospital and throw money and what is basically a corpse with a heartbeat. I suspect that the parents were selfish in this matter. They dragged this whole thing through the courts because their religious beliefs (and maybe issues in the family) made them feel guilt. Fighting to keep her heart beating helped releave them of the guilt and shift it to the husband.
50% Packetloss Posted April 1, 2005 Report Posted April 1, 2005 One of the guys on the trench wars forum posted thishttp://www.hostdub.com/albums/zilla/BAD.jpg
GENERAL_SLAYER Posted April 1, 2005 Author Report Posted April 1, 2005 welll they let her die and then give the pope one to servive............
Aileron Posted April 1, 2005 Report Posted April 1, 2005 I know what a vegetable is thank you very much!!! I never had any naive hopes that she would jump out of her chair and ask what is for breakfast either. The doctor whose article I read could very well be a quack, but he was right about one thing...in every case I've seen doctors give up, the patient was WAY worse off than Shiavo. They are almost always flat out unconcious, a lot older, and have several organ failures. The medical advice offered by the hospital was to let her live and infact give her therapy, so quit with the routine that its simple naitivity you are facing. The expert opinion was to not give up just yet, you are the ones simply being pessimistic. I don't think judges know more about medicine than doctors. They made their judgements from their comfortable courtrooms, having never seen first hand what these cases are like. Its rather disgusting, and the doctors by no means should have listened to them. What were the judges going to do about it? Pe!@#$%^&*ion the AMA to pull their licenses? The AMA wouldn't submit themselves to such harr!@#$%^&*ment. Shiavo never reached the point of giving up.
ThunderJam Posted April 2, 2005 Report Posted April 2, 2005 People who let her die are moral-less !@#$%^&*es. If he cared at all about her, he would divorce her, and give her over to her parents. HAving her killed just so he can remarry is ridiculous. And talking about her wish to die: how the heck do you know she wants to die? You dont, stop making !@#$%^&*umptions.
MonteZuma Posted April 3, 2005 Report Posted April 3, 2005 Her husband and others, including her best friend, testified that she wanted the plug pulled if she was ever in that condition. Even so, people kept her that way for 15 years - without any improvement. The expert opinion was that she would never recover. As for her state of mind in the hospital...She was incapable of thinking. Have you seen the brain scans? Her lights were out AND there was nobody home. It was time to cut the power.
Aileron Posted April 4, 2005 Report Posted April 4, 2005 Dammit...this isn't cutting off power to a house, this is killing somebody by starvation!!!! You think its uncivilized to give murderers a painless execution, but think its just to make an innocent suffer for two weeks just because she doesn't happen to have upper brain function? At very least, they should have given her a morphine injection. I wouldn't let my DOG die of starvation. If one's dog gets old and sick to the point that its better to kill it than let it suffer, you either shoot it in the head or take it to the vet for a lethal injection. You know WHY the judges decided to remove the feeding tube instead of injecting her with morpine? Its for moralistic purposes, because technically, its not the decision that kills her, but her condition. That is the what's truly disgusting on this matter. The judges were trained in textbook philosophy and made their decision by the textbook. They didn't care about life or suffering, they just wanted to make sure that at the end of the day the philosophical theorists couldn't pin them with anything. This kind of theorhetical moralism is getting more and more twisted and disgusting with each new philosopher who adds his theories to the bowl. As I said, I don't know why the doctors submitted themselves to the judgement of the theorhetical moralists. Doctors don't act in the theorhetical, they act in the actual. When push comes to shove, they don't have the luxery of passing off the decision to a higher court or dodging responsability and making a patient suffer me just so that THEY aren't responsable by theorhetical standards. I can understand after fifeteen years why somebody might want to give up. I can even understand if after fifeteen years, somebody might not want to pay the money anymore. However, I can not understand why somebody might, if someone else was willing to pay, override their judgement. And I really can't understand why somebody would rather watch someone suffer for two weeks rather than give her a morphine injection.
Dav Posted April 4, 2005 Report Posted April 4, 2005 To be honest i think allowing her to die was the right course of action. The reason for this is that it was cirtain that she would not recover and relied on feeding tubes to keep her body alive whilst she was uncontious to the world around her. Allowing death sue to a fatal medical disorder is not killing. I do not agree with allwing her to die suffering, letal injections of course can be considerd suffering but morphine or other drugs to allow a peasefull death should have been used.
sil Posted April 4, 2005 Report Posted April 4, 2005 Aileron read that article. And by read I don't just mean skim it over and let your opinion judge the value of it. Read it, understand it, look up the links if you have to. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_schiavo
MonteZuma Posted April 4, 2005 Report Posted April 4, 2005 Dammit...this isn't cutting off power to a house, this is killing somebody by starvation!!!!In many ways it is like cutting the power to a house. Her consciousness had left her. All that was left was the s!@#$%^&* of a human. The house. You think its uncivilized to give murderers a painless execution, but think its just to make an innocent suffer for two weeks just because she doesn't happen to have upper brain function?She didn't suffer because she was unable to feel anything. No pain. No emotion. Nothing. At very least, they should have given her a morphine injection. I wouldn't let my DOG die of starvation. If one's dog gets old and sick to the point that its better to kill it than let it suffer, you either shoot it in the head or take it to the vet for a lethal injection.She didn't feel pain or emotion, so the starvation was only an issue for onlookers. She didn't need any form of pain relief, because she couldn't feel anything. But yes, if she was a dog, she would have been put down 15 years ago. For some reason (which you answer quite well in the next paragraph) our society demands that we put animals out of their misery, but won't let us do it for humans. However, in this case, there was no misery for the victim. She was just a corpse with a heartbeat. All of the misery was felt by the friends and family. You know WHY the judges decided to remove the feeding tube instead of injecting her with morpine? Its for moralistic purposes, because technically, its not the decision that kills her, but her condition. That is the what's truly disgusting on this matter. The judges were trained in textbook philosophy and made their decision by the textbook. They didn't care about life or suffering, they just wanted to make sure that at the end of the day the philosophical theorists couldn't pin them with anything. This kind of theorhetical moralism is getting more and more twisted and disgusting with each new philosopher who adds his theories to the bowl....Good point. But she didn't suffer.
Aileron Posted April 5, 2005 Report Posted April 5, 2005 sil, make your own opinions. And no, I did not read your little article because I have my information on this issue and everyone else does too. I've read articles, you've read articles, everyone's read articles...this forum is for disscussing your opinion, not for !@#$%^&*uming the other guy doesn't have enough information, because everyone in this forum has read plenty of information on whatever issue they post in, or they wouldn't care enough to post. If I ever do get around to making formal rules for this forum, I'll include posting links without adding your own comments under "disrespectfull behavior towards other posters". Monte, other experts claimed that she could feel something...though that is besides the point. It goes back to one of the things dav said. The reason for this (removing the feeding tube rather than morphine injection) is that it was certain that she would not recover... If we are uncertain about her ability to recover, she shouldn't have been taken off the tube in the first place. The justification for removing the tube was that it was impossible for her to recover. If its impossible, then such a test is unecessary. If you aren't sure, you err on the side of letting her live. If you are "pretty sure", then swallow your doubt and give the injection. Expecting most people to make tough decisions like that is pretty harsh, except...these guys are supposed to be judges-its their job to make tough decisions and to stand by them. If they are so weak that they doubt their decision so much to make a woman starve to death to test if they are right, then they shouldn't be on the stand in the first place. Now, back to what Monte said, maybe she couldn't feel herself starving to death. If so, then using the starvation test to make positive would seem like a logical idea. But yet again, she might very well could have felt pain. This is dependant upon Monte's experts being wrong, and if they are wrong then she could have recovered. So, either Monte's experts were right and she neither can feel pain nor would have recovered or Monte's experts were wrong, she did feel pain, but would have recovered. That seems logical and neither is a negative outcome. Such logic is flawed because that is !@#$%^&*uming that removing the feeding tube was going to induce recovery if it was ever going to happen. Basically, if we work under the !@#$%^&*umption that the experts were wrong, there is still the possibility that she could have felt pain and died, but would have recovered, only that removing the recovery wasn't going to occur because the tube was removed. That leads us back to my response to Dav's quote. Either Monte's experts were right and that she could neither recover or feel pain, and we should give her the injection because we know she couldn't recover, or they were wrong and she could both recover and feel pain, in which case we should give her therapy. Either way, starving her to death isn't what should be done. The starvation test is only justifiable if (1) we KNOW she can't feel pain, (2) we don't know whether or not she can recover, and (3) know that removing the feeding tube would induce said recovery. (3) is clearly an !@#$%^&*anine !@#$%^&*umption, but in this case the failure of justication of the starvation is in 1 & 2. In this case, (1) is only correct if and only if (2) is incorrect, because both are dependant upon the same experts. In short, if we believe Monte's experts, we don't need to use the starvation test to test their statements. If we don't believe them or are unsure, then we should assume that she could have recovered and should have tried more therapy. Starving her to death requires contradictory !@#$%^&*umptions. I realise speaking against theorists in one post and providing one nice long theory with proof in the next is almost the mother of all contradictions. However, this is a theorhetical forum. Theory is discussed here because 'here' is not a real place, but an imaginary place specifically devoted to theory. In real life, I don't sit in the CCU spouting out theories to doctors while they are working on patients. BTW, the point about the "It was time to cut the power." isn't about whatever validness the acronym might have. The point is a human being, even if they are flat-out dead and buried, should not be described in that manner. If its wrong to talk about a dead person like that, then it is wrong to disrespect the living no matter how bad their condition is, because their condition is always more than and at very least "dead". It was a callast statement that undercuts the seriousness of the situation.
Bajan Posted April 5, 2005 Report Posted April 5, 2005 why has nobody brought up the fact that putting here on the tube in the first place is playing god and totally wrong, let alone "murdering" her afterwards. She wouldn't have lived long anyway, seriously, think about it..
Aileron Posted April 7, 2005 Report Posted April 7, 2005 um, no, it wasn't. The Vatican's official opinion on playing God: If it promotes life, its good, if it opposes life, its bad. Thus, a high-tech medical treatment to cure a disease is good, but an abortion is bad. It makes sense - God is way more powerfull than no matter what technology we have, so I doubt He will have any problem with us using higher technology, because to Him its all obsolite crappy material stuff. He would only care HOW we use the technology. "Playing God" will never be a justification for euthanasia. As for Shiavo, the situation wasn't even hopeless before the tube was removed...as long as she's awake, there are still options left. If the patient is awake, there's always a good chance she can recover if given enough time. You have to see the cases where doctors give up. The doctor's primary !@#$%^&*essment for giving up is age. This even comes before condition most of the time. A young person can recover from almost anything, and old person has a much more difficult time, and usually manages to get another infirmity soon anyway. They also don't give up if their patient in concious. If their patient is concious, the person is usually two steps away from recovery. When they get a young concious patient and can stabilise that patient, it usually is a matter of time until recovery happens. Remember, Shiavo is one of many patients who were administered feeding tubes, and is on of the few who did not recover. I mean, she's young and she's concious! Sure, she's suffered some brain damage, but until we tried therapy we frankly wouldn't know how much of that is physical and how much of that is atrophy. Considering that MOST of her brain functions, senses, heartbeat, breathing, were fine...it seems VERY likely that she can recover. As for the brain scans, we frankly know !@#$%^&* about the brain. Its still a giant mystery to us. We have some general clues, as to generally what goes where, but nothing detailed. We know that some portion of her upper brain was damaged, but for all we know all the damage did was remove her ability to do high level calculus, and that the rest of it could have been atrophy. I mean, after a certain amount of time you give up on patients. When I first heard of this case, I thought they should have given up. But, with more information, I learned that this was a don't-give-up-just yet case that was decided wrong because the general public doesn't know where "bad" ends and "let's give up" begins. You need to work in a hospital to understand. I worked at a local hospital doing grunt work for just two years...and strangely it has been the most educational experience of my life.
MonteZuma Posted April 7, 2005 Report Posted April 7, 2005 um, no, it wasn't.I agree. In the first instance, the feeding tube was necessary. There was hope that she could recover. As for Shiavo, the situation wasn't even hopeless before the tube was removed...as long as she's awake, there are still options left. If the patient is awake, there's always a good chance she can recover if given enough time.No. Over time, her cerebral cortex (about 75% of the brain, including the bits that give us thoughts and feelings) was destroyed. Her head was full of spinal fluid. The term 'awake' normally implies that she had some consiousness. She didn't. Her condition was worse than being in a coma. You have to see the cases where doctors give up. The doctor's primary !@#$%^&*essment for giving up is age. This even comes before condition most of the time. A young person can recover from almost anything, and old person has a much more difficult time, and usually manages to get another infirmity soon anyway.Nobody hasa ever recovered from the state that she was in. Her brain would need to spontaneously reconstruct itself. They also don't give up if their patient in concious. If their patient is concious, the person is usually two steps away from recovery.She wasn't conscious. When they get a young concious patient and can stabilise that patient, it usually is a matter of time until recovery happens. Remember, Shiavo is one of many patients who were administered feeding tubes, and is on of the few who did not recover.The real issue is the stete of her brain. Nobody has ever recovered from a PVS after more than 3 months. Never ever. Sure, she's suffered some brain damage, but until we tried therapy we frankly wouldn't know how much of that is physical and how much of that is atrophy.Umm. The scans showed that her brain had turned to mush. Considering that MOST of her brain functions, senses, heartbeat, breathing, were fine...it seems VERY likely that she can recover.All of her senses were fine except that she could not think or feel anything. And she would never, ever be able to think and feel anything. Every movement and action she exhibited was an involuntary reflex. As for the brain scans, we frankly know !@#$%^&* about the brain.Ummm. We know quite a bit. Most importantly, we know that when your cerebral cortex is replaced with spinal fluid you are screwed. Period. I mean, after a certain amount of time you give up on patients. When I first heard of this case, I thought they should have given up. But, with more information, I learned that this was a don't-give-up-just yet case that was decided wrong because the general public doesn't know where "bad" ends and "let's give up" begins.What information? You need to work in a hospital to understand.Actually, you don't.
Aileron Posted April 11, 2005 Report Posted April 11, 2005 I didn't say it looked good. She was indeed approaching the point of no return, and maybe she did p!@#$%^&* it like you say. However, this case came to the courts because the hospital personelle didn't recommend removing the tube, and since they knew the most about her situation, I stick to their advice. I'd just rather have a doctor, who have first hand knowledge of the situation, make that decision than a judge, or you or I for that matter. I will admit it, its a debatable case. Those who are sure about their verdict are the only ones that are really wrong.
MonteZuma Posted June 15, 2005 Report Posted June 15, 2005 LARGO, Fla. (Reuters) - Terri Schiavo, a Florida woman who died in March after a fierce right-to-die battle that went all the way to the White House, was massively and irreversibly brain-damaged, pathologists announcing the results of an autopsy said on Wednesday. The results supported clinical findings and the contention of her husband that Schiavo had been in a "persistent vegetative state" since collapsing 15 years earlier from a cardiac arrest that deprived her brain of oxygen, said Dr. Stephen Nelson, a forensic pathologist who !@#$%^&*isted in the autopsy. "She would not have been able to form any cognitive thought," said Nelson, speaking with Pinellas County Medical Examiner Jon Thogmartin at a news conference. "There was a massive loss of brain tissue." During a long and bitter family feud over Schiavo's fate, courts consistently ruled in support of Schiavo's husband and legal guardian, Michael Schiavo, that Schiavo would not have wanted to live in such a state. A persistent vegetative state meant she was unable to think, feel or interact with her environment.
Dr.Worthless Posted June 15, 2005 Report Posted June 15, 2005 The only real tragedy in my opinion was the fact that they actually kept her body alive for as long as they did. If I ever have any form of accident where I'm brain dead or cannot sustain life without the help of machines to breathe for me, I'd only hope my family would honor my wish to just let me pass
Recommended Posts