I think that part of the problem is that the public probably believes that the doctors are just going to take Terri off of a breathing machine. I just cant believe that there are that many people who actually think its ok to starve someone to death because its the 'humane' thing to do.
I remember someone made a comment in another thread a few months ago saying that dying of thirst was actually a very peacefull way to go! I think some resourceful blogger should look up some medical info on what its like to die of thirst. Not a pretty picture.

Ummm... I hesitate to bring this up... but I have some very up front and personal experience with the kind of death that the court has ordered for Terry. News flash; It's anything BUT painless.

A lot of press reports are covering it that way. "No Pain" "Humane" "Dignified" etc.

The problem with starving someone to death, aside from the starving is the dehydration. Dying from Dehydration is incredibly painful. If you've ever had a dehydration headache, that's just the start of the process, and it only gets worse.

If you really want to kill someone with no pain, you OD 'em on morphine or other opiate. Hell when they execute prisoners, they don't suffer anything compared to what's happening to Terri.

Wesley J. Smith has an article over at the Weekly Standard describing some of the symptoms Terri will have over the next few days if something doesnt change. Its pretty horrible.

He even has quotes from a woman who was in a vegetative state like Terri but who managed to recover. She went 8 days without food or water and was also operated on without the proper amount of anastesia.

The link is to the second page of the story.

I've seen that article, and there's a very important point in it for anyone who thinks dying of starvation and thirst is painless. The woman in that article underwent surgery without sufficient anesthesia - IOW, she could feel pain, but was unable to let anyone know.

She says the pain she experienced while being denied food and water was worse.

I hate to say it, but previous posters never have asked a doctor how it goes with patients that refuse food and water - or seen a dying relative that has refused food and water and died peacefully. They have likely never heard of cachexia.

Nor, likely, in the case of PVS patient Schiavo - what a cerebral cortex is and what function it plays in pain sensation.

It seems they all oppose letting Schiavo die for religious or personal reasons - and see hyping their false picture - "Dehydration = Toooortuuuuuree!!
as good propaganda.....even something they personally believe. But unaware or ignoring dehydration is a key proximate cause of a good deal of the 2.5 million deaths happening in America every year, since it is a symptom and a personal dying strategy of heart failure, degenerative disease sufferers, and cancer patients in particular.

"personal dying strategy "

what the fuck are you talking about? Even im getting sick of reading your crap Cedarford.

Cedarfords girlish Bitching = Toooortuuuuuree!!

Hey cedarford, you still up? Well seeing as you're still here check this out:

"He was despised and forsaken of men, A man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; And like one from whom men hide their face He was despised an we did not esteem Him."

Do you know who wrote that? It was the prophet Isaiah speaking of the coming messiah. This is why you need to meed Jesus, because He and you have a lot in common.

Talk to you more later, cedarford.

CEDARFORD has ruined enough blog sites to chocke a horse.
Again I ask you, are you funded, what do you gain.
even the fatboy is sick of him

Jesus and Cedarford have a lot in common?

The Jews killed Jesus. Jews havent killed Cedarford ...yet.

Jesus had a kickass beard. Cedarford has a sissy mustache.

Jesus was really "well hung" (dont believe me? just ask the Romans) ---Cedarford had his penis bitten off by a cranky neocon.

Goodnight folks. Ill see you all in hell.

cedarford; Here's someone who knows about it first hand saying to you directly..... you've no freakin clue.

you see how he's hijacked the thread? It went from being about saving some poor womans life to having to deal with a stupid troll.

Do Not feed the troll.

"Even the fat boy is sick of him"---Viperdisorder.

Damn, Viper, I think you have done the impossible. You have identified a point on which Ace and O-Chub can agree!

See Cedarford, who, by the way is a cock sucker, is more than just a troll. He's a brownshirted uber-troll on a personal blitzkreig through the blogosphere, spreading racism, anti-semitism, and copies of Mein Kampf in his wake.

The only difference between him and Hitler? Scholars believe Hitler at least got laid once.

The thing is, what is the argument for ending her life this way assuming that she's in a persistent vegetative state? Are you ending her suffering? Letting her die with dignity? What, other than that her husband wants her life ended as soon as possible? I mean in that case, what would be the harm in letting her parents and the rest of the people who love her to keep her alive (by just feeding and hydrating her, we all know we're not talking about some kind of life support machine here).

Okay, what if she's not in a persistent vegetative state, then what's the argument, considering that she would then most likely suffer horribly by starving and dehydration? All I keep reading about are arguments back and forth about whether she is in a persistent vegetative state, but either way I can't see any persuasive reason to be pro starving and dehydrating Terri.

Argrif, great point. The only answer they can give in repsonse is that Terri would have wanted it that way, the evidence of which is dubious.

Agrif,

Your points are well intended, but are perhaps, still off the mark.

It has been reported that the threshold required to remove the feeding tube in this case was the establishment of a PVS. The accuracy of this diagnosis, as has been pointed out before, is in doubt.

But try to understand the notion of the process of substituted judgment vis a vis a surrogate decision maker. Another caveat in this case, having Michael Schiavo as the surrogate is also controversial.

..."if this is true then she's not suffering now and there is absolutely no harm in letting her family keep her alive as long as they're willing to pay for it."

The ethical harm here specifically, and in other cases generally, is the failure of family, friends, advocates of sustained-therapy, the legislature, etc., to respect the autonomy and self-determination of the person. by not respecting one's stated premorbid wishes, either in an advance directive or through informal personal communication.

Furthermore, if someone in their premorbid state, decides that withdrawal of treatment in certain circumstances is preferred, even if that meant some discomfort or pain, that is their choice as a consenting adult.

Note, this is a different set of decision determinants, than say for children or the psychiatrically/mentally incapacitated where there was no premorbid ability to decide for oneself. In such cases the model used is one of "best interest."

Specifically, I understand fully that this case is troubling as doubt remains whether Terri Schiavo did in fact communicate to her husband, brother and sister-in-law that she didn't want "artificial life support" (use your own euphemism here). And therefore, the court should err on the side of continuing therapy. This is, by the way, what doctors are trained to advocate in the absence of an advance directive, clear or convincing premorbid statements, or failure of consensus of "best interest."

But let's say that Terri Schiavo did make such statements, and that she would want the feeding tube removed at this time.

The determination of "harm" therefore, would be that Terri Schiavo's right of self-determination would have been violated, by her parents and others, placing their own preferences ahead of hers, at the center of deliberation.

Now, as to whether or not the statements purported to have been made by Terri Schiavo are true, has been adjudicated and reviewed. Whether an appropriate evidentiary threshold was crossed to justify the finding on the side of Michael Schiavo, as I stated before, is debated still by many.

But there is the potential for serious damage to all of our liberty, if this case is not resolved carefully. The danger lies in the potential that the actions of the Schindler's would be used as a general precedent, intruding upon on our rights and autonomy of self-determination, and the erosion of the doctor-patient relationship, all beginning with the argument, as you did, "What's the harm?"

Bithead - You say you are someone who knows firsthand, and I have no "freakin clue".

So you lost most of your cerebral cortex then suffered starving and dehydration??

I've never talked to someone that lost the cognitive area of his brain before. Or had his feeding tube removed.

You mean you felt pain, Bithead? Do other vegetatives like you also suffer? Have you communicated to Congress that as a PVS patient missing a good part of his brain, you know that Schiavo will feel pain if she is not watered and given
nutrients?

MeTooThen,

So what's the point in keeping cups of water and spoons of food away from Terri?

Are cups and spoons now considered medical equipment?

If so, the Blogger Who Shall Not Be Named could get a very sizable tax break.

Hello Cedarford,

Well, you now know that to be saved one needs to repent and that Christ's death on the cross is the act that provides that salvation. Here's something you might not know. The Bible says the wages of sin is death but the free gift of God is eternal life. So you may be asking yourself what you have to do to get eternal life. Well, the answer, amazingly enough, is nothing! Its a gift! If you had to do something for it it wouldn't be a gift any longer. So, ask God for that gift by telling him you are turning away from your sin, that you acknowledge Jesus as your savior, and he will give you the gift. Its easy! Now, once you've done that I think you'll find you will be able to release all that hate you hold inside. Jesus after all said, "Come to me all you who are weary and heavy laden and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for you souls".

I know this discussion makes you uncomfortable but you need to ask yourself why that is. Perhaps you should also be concerned that your current religion has not been able to give you a tolerant spirit. But, I've had my say and this will be the end of it. Contrary to what you believe, Christians don't force anything down anybody's throat. We are however under an obligation to impart what we know to those we suspect don't know it. The choice however is ultimately yours to make. I sincerely wish you well.

I'd be in favor of snuffing Terri if we had something more than hearsay to back up her supposed wish to die under these circumstances. The liberals who are refusing to stand up for Terri are Nazi's, not libs and I'm ashamed of them all.

Come on now, liberals are too quick to play that Nazi card, even against other liberals.

MeTooThen,

Okay, but that argument is only convincing if we know that it was Terri's wish to not live in her condition. My reason for making this point is that in Terri's case, many of those who argue for the removal of her feading tube claim that she is in a persistent vegetative state. Well, even if I were convinced that that was true, I still wouldn't be convinced that there is any urgency for removing her feeding tube.

Now now, Ace, in this case the Nazi card is quite apt.

argrif,

If Terri Schiavo is not in a PVS (I believe she is not), then the judge has erred in allowing the feeding tube to be removed (that reportedly is the threshold needed for allowing the feeding tube to be removed).

All other issues are moot for the time being.

My point was directed at the larger issue of "What's the harm?"

As far as any urgency to remove the feeding tube, that depends on whether or not one feels that Terri Schiavo's autonomy has been lost. Even then there is no real urgency. Whatever urgency there is artificial, it is a product of the court finally allowing it to happen, in the absence of any remedy or recourse for those who oppose it.

If there was no such resistance, the feeding tube could have or would have been removed, I suspect, arbitrarily at some point after the court's ruling (on this, I am of course, speculating.)

Again, the desire of her parents and others to keep her alive would be irrelevant, if their desire was contrary to Terri's premorbid wishes.

And yes, of course, there is great controversy in this case as to the reliability, motives, and veracity of the witnesses who have given testimony on the issue of premorbid statements. But the reports that the Schindler's apparent admitted that they would not abide by a bona fide advance directive or clear and convincing statements of Terri's that advocated withdrawal of therapy, is disturbing, to say the least.

What so many people here are missing, is the fundamental need to protect the autonomy and self-determination, or liberty if you will, of a person who no longer can speak out for themselves, having been incapacitated or disabled, by illness or injury.

The threat of intrusion into the individual's ability to make health care decisions for themselves is what is in jeopardy here, along with the possible injustice being done to Terri Schiavo.

The threat of coercion or interference of the state or any other party, into what should be inviolate and otherwise sacrosanct territory, is alarming.

I have never once argued for the removal of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube, nor the withdrawal of any comfort measure, or other medically indicated therapy.

The conflation of the possible injustice being done to Terri Schiavo with the now so-called "horrors or evils" of the removal of some forms of therapy, in any and all circumstances, withdrawal mind you, consented to by competent adults, or by their proxies, is misguided, wrong, and potentially very harmful.

As a final note, I don't think I will comment on this case any further. But I am surprised that more conservative and libertarian readers and writers here don't share my cause for alarm.

That is all.

Just sayin'.

MeTooThen,

Your points are well thought out and well taken. I also believe she is not in a PVS (which makes it horrifying to think of her being starved and dehydrated to death). Since I began thinking about this point though of "what's the harm" in just letting her live if she's not suffering anyway, for the sake of her family if nothing else, I became even more convinced that there is just no way that a reasonable person could think that her husband is acting in her best interest.

In the absence of a living will, the default should be to assume that the individual wouldn't want to be starved and dehydrated to an agonizing death. I can't believe that individuals from now on are going to have to specify in a living will something like: "In the event that I'm ever incapacitated and am unable to feed myself, I do NOT wish to starved and dehydrated to death", although that is what the situation seems to have come to.

argrif,

Thank you for your comments.

As above, I wasn't going to comment further, but one issue needs to be clarified as well.

Here:

"In the absence of a living will, the default should be to assume that the individual wouldn't want to be starved and dehydrated to an agonizing death."

This notion that the removal of hydration is "agonizing" is one of the dangers that I wrote about above.

If, for example, I were to withhold hydration to a healthy, conscious person, until they died, well then yes, that would be agonizing.

But to say that the removal of hydration in all circumstances is "cruel," "agonizing," or even "wrong," is clinically unfounded and false.

Note: One of my most esteemed teachers (a neuro-oncologist) who was one of my two most influential mentors, argued against the removal of hydration in almost every circumstance.

Bear in mind that just as birth is a recognizable event, so too, is dying. And that in the process of dying, it is very often the case that our bodies neither crave, nor can utilize nutrition and hydration.

Actually, the converse is true. In the process of dying, our bodies may eschew nutrition and hydration as protein, for example, may not be metabolized or properly distributed, worsening swelling, worsening breathing, or worsening kidney function. Hydration may similarly worsen already failing systems, adding discomfort to what is often an uncomfortable experience.

And no, just as birth is not pain-free, so too, with dying. As the saying goes, "Dying ain't ever easy."

In the case of someone who has severe neurological impairment, say end-stage Alzheimer's disease, or a PVS, where either awareness and meaning are lost, or consciousness is lost, the experience of dying is minimized by these losses of cognitive function and awareness.

The calculus here is one of "competing goals." The goals of therapy for the dying, or the severely neurologically impaired may not include the extension or prolongation of life, at all costs, for as long as possible. Rather, the goals of therapy may be to minimize the impact of the complication of the illness, such as removal of pain, existential suffering, etc.

Some people hold to the goal that life must be preserved at all cost for as long as possible for themselves, and by extension, for everyone else.

While this belief is principled, it should not infringe on the liberty of those who hold a different view of what they believe the goals of therapy should be for themselves.

That is why, if someone chooses to withdraw therapy if and when they reach such a state, the discomfort of these measures is balanced by the application of "comfort measures," morphine, suction, pulmonary toilet, etc.

And no, this is not to say that Terri Schiavo will not suffer. Her clinical state is unknown, and I do not advocate the removal of any medically indicated therapy.

But to argue against the "cruelty" and horrors of the removal of hydration and nutrition, as if it is cruel and agonizing, in all circumstances, is exactly the kind of dangerous polemic that I wrote about above.

What I am already seeing on the pages of the blogosphere are nonsensical rants about the dangers of neurological diagnoses, e.g., that "if neurologists can't explain how consciouness works, how can they determine if it's impaired?" and similar kinds of unrelated, poorly informed, and unhelpful contributions to the debate about Terri Schiavo.

Sadly, as predicted, the backlash against end-of-life, and other terminal care has begun.

As I wrote at a different site, if people are not careful, they will get what they ask for. And once they get, they won't want what they got.

Just let her die, man. Suffering is suffering no matter what form it takes, dehydration, starvation, PVS, etc. etc.

An interesting take from someone over on the usually frothing at the mouth DU.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3304345&mesg_id=3313526&page=