Where is Delay when we need him. He pulled the plug on his own dad but was a hero in the Sciavo affair. What the hell right does the gov have in these personal issues, anyway? Is there anything that the government doesn't butt into.

Sorry, who had a conflict of interest in the Schiavo case that even rated in the reason for her to be taken off support next to her being braindead for many years ?

Amazing. A judge assumes complete power over life and death, no appeals or anything, and all of a sudden he's a hero to the two clowns above.

Mork, Tank, here's hoping that YOU two find out how much your lives are worth in the eyes of the law and modern medicine...
Sweet dreams.

Way to use your own minimal brain function there Dave. I take it that was your way of saying "I can't disagree with you".

Tank, a more accurater translation would be: "I hope that a family member who hopes to profit by your death has your plug pulled, with the assistance of a judge who thinks you're better off dead than alive as a matter of political doctrine and wishes to hear no arguements to the contrary."

With your attitude, I'm sure that there are no shortage of your blood relations who'd prefer to see you slowly, helplessly dehydrate to death just on GP, much less if there was insurance money in it- as there was for Mike Schiavo.

Here's hoping you enjoy the experience. I know your family will...

Don't look both ways before crossing the street, Tank. Your family will thank you for it.

I'm so confused. An 11 y/o is in a coma since September and a judge wants to pull the plug (already) but in California the argument was put forward that to execute a man convicted of killing three people was cruel and unusual punishement because of his failing health.

Sorry, who had a conflict of interest in the Schiavo case that even rated in the reason for her to be taken off support next to her being braindead for many years ?

Her husband, who had quite a life insurance policy. How can you discuss this without knowing that?

Where is Delay when we need him. He pulled the plug on his own dad but was a hero in the Sciavo affair.

Delay's father had massive organ failure. He was on his way out regardless of medical action.
Shiavo was stable. The two cannot be compared.

DaveP,

Pretty harsh, dude.

Windrider, you really haven't seen anything yet. This subject makes red-on-red combat in Iraq look like Wally and The Beaver chasing each other around the front lawn.

Feh. The link isn't working for me.

She's been in a coma for four months? That's really not long enough, is it? I mean, is she on total heart/lung support or what?

How can the step-uncle be charged with murder ifth state pulls the plug?
Not that I thnk he doesn't deserve the charge and penalty, but technically he cn't be chargd with murder, unless the child dies before the state murders her, I mean starves her to death, I mean
euthanizes her. Yeah, that sounds so much better.

Mork -

You ask "is there anything the government doesn't butt into." And, from the rest of your post, I assume you are not talking about the Court. Last time I checked, Courts are part of the judiciary, which is a branch of government. Therefore, the government is the one butting in and deciding to kill the girl - not to mention the Department of Social Services, which again, is a government agency, which decided to kill the girl. So, you have 2 branches of government wanting to kill the girl and one private (albeit sounds like a scumbag) citizen who wants to keep the girl alive. So, what is the point of your comment?

This to me seems like a less serious issue than the whole Schiavo mess, if only because the child is on a ventilator. Schiavo could breathe on her own - "pulling the plug" in her case amounted to refusing to give her food or water until she dehydrated. Not the kind of thing I'd want done to me based on an off-hand remark I'd made years ago.

I've often wondered why this subject brings on such heated debate when so many other horrible things we confront in this country do not.

While I agreed with "pulling the plug" on any patient as long as those who loved her/him wanted that, but to deny parents the right to be with and provide water while she or he dies is unacceptable and wrong.

I was shocked at how many people disagreed with me.

I suggest to everyone to have a living will with specific instructions on who makes the decisions. And not just a name, but a name with conditions. (Such as a spouse not having kids with someone else, which may cloud their judgement for instance) and to specify whether you would like to die of dehydration or not. Be specific! The one who loves you the most may not be the one making the decisions.

Whoa. Anyone notice something different?

There's some good reasoning on both sides of this issue, but a lot of bad reasoning too. For example: it makes no sense to talk about government "butting in" to end-of-life decisions. If somebody causes another human being's death, we normally call that "murder" and throw him in prison. There are exceptions, such as detaching a ventilator when there's no medical hope of recovery and little to no brain activity, but some part of the government has to double-check that that's really the case.

Haleigh "is in an irreversible and permanent coma, with the least amount of brain function that a person can have and still be considered alive."

This kid was removed from her home at age 4 because the mother's bf was screwing her. She was placed in a home where over a long period of time she was abused and beaten and eventually leading to her brain death. I am more concerned that this happened and that the evil doers be punished.

A couple of things I heard locally on the radio...

If the guy keeps (hes not her dad) her alive for a year and a day he can't get charged with murder/beating her to death with a baseball bat.

I understand she has a brainstem severance type injury not just a feeding tube, shes not making eye contact with anybody. Thats a huge difference between this and the Schiavo case. There isn't any amount of therapy that will allow her brain to keep her heart and lungs functioning without machines.

She cannot possibly ever recover and this scumbags only reason for pleading for her life is soley to save his own ass. As sad as it is, the right choice was probably made.

In my experience there is a direct and inverse relationship to personal experience in this type of situation and the the horror people show toward assisted suicide. I know a lot of people flame Terry Shiavo's husband and assume he took the position he did because of an insurance policy. Perhaps. But maybe you would see things differently if you spent a few days or 10 years walking in his shoes.

Looking down the road, I will be faced with this situation. Its inevitable. It will be a few years (hopefully) before I will be in the situation of having a family member who is totally infirmed by an incurable condition and I will have to make the call. I honestly have no idea what I will do. I don't know what they will ask me to do.

But if I do make the call to end suffering, anyone who says I did it for insurance money is free to meet me at a place of their choosing for a world class ass whipping. I know exactly why I feel the emotions I do. What baffles me is the people who rage against assisted suicide for people who are terminally ill and suffering.

Another imperial judge assisting in murder another black robed killer to allow another human life to end while blocking the construction of a new dam becuase it threatens the snail darter whata bunch of crinimals they are

As much as everyone decrys slippery lope arguments, here we now have two plot points and they form a rather downgrading slope:

Schiavo: Braindead (though in dispute), wanted to die (though in dispute), husband as next of kin vs parents as next of kin

Haleigh :Comatose (though the NYT claims it to be irreversible,like I trust those bastards), no statement of intent, and uncle as next of kin vs state (and unlikeTookie- the ucle has yet to be convicted of anything)

Plus the judges opinion makes him sound like a jackass:"memory will remind us, time and again, that we, as a society, need to do more to aid children who are neglected and abused, and thereby denied the care and nurturing they so desperately want and need."

Like life support? Doesn't THAT qualify as care & nurturing you bastards?

How can the step-uncle be charged with murder ifth state pulls the plug?
Not that I thnk he doesn't deserve the charge and penalty, but technically he cn't be chargd with murder

Sure he can. You shoot someone, he's in serious but not grave condition, the surgeon subsequently botches the surgery, and he dies. You can be charged with murder. There is in intervening cause for the death but you are still responsible for the harm caused by your assault. Something like "intentional harm trumps intervening cause."

Ace,

If you ever remind me of Torts again, I'll cut you.

When someone with a conflict of interest wants the plug pulled: pull the plug.

When someone with a conflict of interest doesn't want the plug pulled: pull the plug.

These aren't parallel cases. Michael Schiavo was the patient's gurdian, although her parents argued that their marital situation justified a change in that status. Strickland is not the patient's guardian, although he's claiming that his having murdered her mother justified a change in that status.

(I normally avoid Schiavo-related arguing and don't have strong opinion one way or the other, but wanted to clarify the apparent paradox.)

Nice spin, Ace. These cases are not about who may or may not have a conflict of interest, it's about who has the legal right to be guardian. In Schiavo, the husband was gaurdian, not the folks, conflict of interest was a valid secondary consideration, but, in our system, it did not trump the parent's claim. Similarly, in this case, the state is the legal guardian (due to sf's being deemed the assaulter), conflict of interest being a spurious claim here. (How can the state have a conflict of interest? What do they have to gain?)

Your fallacy: Incorrect assignment of causuality for a similar result.

That being said, they should probably wait until the sf is convicted before denying his plea for guardianship.
Also, 4 months seems a bit precipitous, but I'm not a doctor.

When someone has been in a coma, even a young person, for almost six months, the chances of coming out of the coma are nearly zero statistically. If she comes out of the coma, the chances of her regaining any sort of function are even less. One needs a certain amount of viable brain tissue to be able to take over the functions controlled by the brain tissue that was killed with her beating. If her viable brain tissue is almost nil, she will not be able to recover because brain tissue which is dead does not regenerate.

It is possible to make a fairly good estimate of someone's brain function and determine the chances at any point in time that the person's coma will be reversible. Trust the Whore on this one, yo.

Of course, the stepfather shouldn't have been in charge of the decisions; when there's no one else to take over, the state does. The state was, I believe, doing what was in her best interest given that the chances of her recovery were nearly zero.

Tank, a more accurater translation would be: "I hope that a family member who hopes to profit by your death has your plug pulled, with the assistance of a judge who thinks you're better off dead than alive as a matter of political doctrine and wishes to hear no arguements to the contrary."
Posted by DaveP. at January 18, 2006 07:04 AM

Yeah this was actually quite apparent from your first post Dave. Likewise, it is still either missing or deliberately avoiding the point.

If I'm already braindead and have been for such a period of years that my unused brain has shrunk to half the normal size then there is no amount of life insurance possible which compares to the fact that I'm dead when it comes to ruling whether to cease artifically animating my dead body for no apparent reason.

It just isn't possible. You can't go to a life office and ask for trillions upon trillions of dollars of insurance which would compare this.

And please don't argue this with me on this. Just show your conviction and faith in your beliefs by leaving your dog where it is when it dies and don't under any circumstances move or bury it. Even if it is in the living room and you have to every day make accommodations for something which has for all purposes other than ideology (and aint it just the reason to top all others) ceased to exist.

With your attitude, I'm sure that there are no shortage of your blood relations who'd prefer to see you slowly, helplessly dehydrate to death just on GP, much less if there was insurance money in it- as there was for Mike Schiavo.

Or... and this is just a crazy suggestion unpropted by the subject at hand... after seeing 758,242 news reporters mention the fact that precisely these types of situations arise only because coma-guy didn't leave instructions for what he wanted I might take 0.00002 seconds and then decide to make those decisions myself.

You on the other hand watched all that shit including the 758,242 explanations of how everyone could avoid this themselves and apparently STILL see this as a inevitable thing.

What can I say. The vegetative state is strong with you Dave.

Getting to this a little late...

Jack, my one concern (as an aspiring MD) is being put in a legal position where I have to end someone's life that has been in my care. I am just not comfortable with that- it seems to me to violate the Hippocratian oath. Hey- I don't think anyone's going to stop you if you've made up your mind that you want to die, particularly if you're in a lot of pain and not going to get better.

I just don't want to be told "You as an MD have to prescribe and administer a lethal dose of whatever because we, the law, say you do." I am not comfortable being an executioner to someone not guilty of a death crime.

There are many situations out there where I will merrily adminster violent death to the bad guys, but that ain't it. I am grateful that the Supreme Court ruled as narrowly as it did.

tmi3rd

>>Sorry, who had a conflict of interest in the Schiavo
>>case that even rated in the reason for her to be
>>taken off support next to her being braindead
>>for many years ?
>
>Her husband, who had quite a life insurance policy.
>How can you discuss this without knowing that?
Posted by Jason Edwards at January 18, 2006 07:29 AM

Dude you could assume anyone who didn't know this could probably guess it on their own.

My question was in terms of a court ruling to terminate her life support, how exactly does him having a life insurance policy (which differs from a contract you take out on someone with a hitman) rate in terms of him having a motivation to see her declared dead...
Compare with her actually being dead.

I could say the same thing to you about hearing the "brain shrunk to half original size" thing since that was one of those things you don't hear that often.

> Delay's father had massive organ failure. He was
> on his way out regardless of medical action.
> Shiavo was stable. The two cannot be compared.

I didn't actually mention Delay but would you object to me clarifying that assessment as "stable but dead" ?
Because that condition of stability really seemed to serve other people more than it served her.

Terri Schiavo was not 'stable but dead' she was brain impaired and stable. Brain death implies a lack of detectable brain waves -- something I don't believe anyone could reasonably claim was accurate for Terri.

According to regularly accepted hospice regulations, Terri was not terminally ill, and did not belong in hospice. According to Florida state law, the judge should not have been allowed to prevent oral food and water.

As a longtime hospice worker, in both patient care and administration, I honestly can't understand why Terri was allowed to starve.

Maybe they can keep her on the ventilator and dehydrate her to death. Ten days to suffer and die as opposed to ten minutes. That would be a good compromise for Tank and the other plugyankers, yes?

Being in a persistent vegetative state means the only things working are your resipatory and cardiac systems as controlled by your primitive brainstem but everything else is gone, as in the case of Terri.

This girl didn't even have her respiratory function intact. People can be kept "alive" [heart beating...brain death is clinical death] for a long period of time on ventilators even while being brain dead, which is how we have organ donors.

Even if the bad guy (stepfather) and the government reach the same decision, it shouldn't be the stepdad officially making the decision.

People who think human beings with no brain function should be hooked up to ventilators forever until their heart goes out are just cruel or ignorant or both. This girl's brain was killed; the stepparents just didn't take care of the heart. I hope the stepdad fries in Hell. No one else should feel any guilt for letting her go to God.

Jack, my one concern (as an aspiring MD) is being put in a legal position where I have to end someone's life that has been in my care

I'm far from an expert on things medical but would you have to be in that situation? Many doctors refuse to perform abortions for their own reasons. Why couldn't you choose not to participate in assisted suicides if you had an ethical problem with it?

Not sure anyone, doctors, family and most of all the victim relishes the concept of assisted suicide. But if the alternative is a slow, painful death or a persistent vegitative state I think a person should have the right to opt out.

But if the alternative is a slow, painful death or a persistent vegitative state I think a person should have the right to opt out.
Posted by JackStraw at January 18, 2006 01:48 PM

Isn't that what sleeping pills are for?

Remember the wisdom of Dr. Nick:

"Just to be safe, we better pull the plug. Yoink!"

> Maybe they can keep her on the ventilator and
> dehydrate her to death. Ten days to suffer and die as
> opposed to ten minutes. That would be a good
> compromise for Tank and the other plugyankers, yes?
> Posted by Sue Dohnim at January 18, 2006 12:33 PM

You think a judge decided to starve someone to death because they thought that would be a good thing rather than because that is all the law allowed for ?

So apparently you weren't too happy with how Terry Schiavo died but have decided that this should continue because it's a good thing.

Or did I get that wrong and instead of just bitching about the people who have already suffered like this you've actually asked your representatives to ensure this doesn't happen to people in future ? No ?
Yet you think I'm the one who wants this to continue.

Some of you are obviously high. Schiavo was blind. She didn't make eye contact.

Did you read what you linked to regarding witholding food and water? That was regarding suicide and euthaniasia and said that "withholding life-prolonging procedures" is not suicide.
Further, the FL legislature says.

http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0765/SEC102.HTM&Title=-%3E2003-%3ECh0765-%3ESection%20102
"The Legislature recognizes that for some the administration of life-prolonging medical procedures may result in only a precarious and burdensome existence. In order to ensure that the rights and intentions of a person may be respected even after he or she is no longer able to participate actively in decisions concerning himself or herself, and to encourage communication among such patient, his or her family, and his or her physician, the Legislature declares that the laws of this state recognize the right of a competent adult to make an advance directive instructing his or her physician to provide, withhold, or withdraw life-prolonging procedures, or to designate another to make the treatment decision for him or her in the event that such person should become incapacitated and unable to personally direct his or her medical care."

http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0765/SEC101.HTM&Title=-%3E2003-%3ECh0765-%3ESection%20101 "'Life-prolonging procedure' means any medical procedure, treatment, or intervention, including artificially provided sustenance and hydration, which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function. The term does not include the administration of medication or performance of medical procedure, when such medication or procedure is deemed necessary to provide comfort care or to alleviate pain."

People who think human beings with no brain function should be hooked up to ventilators forever

She is breathing on her own now.

I don't know how it will turn out.

Human beings with no brain function are what is technically known as "dead."

How much awareness human beings with impaired brain function may have is simply impossible to gauge. That's why there's controversy. My take is, when in doubt, you don't kill people. I can't for the life of me understand why that's considered a religious position.

Now that she's breathing on her own, the papers have archly speculated that she may turn out to be a "miracle."

Um hm. Either that, or her doctors were "wrong" and "hasty."

So when a family is at the hospital making the heart rending decision to remove life support from their child who was hit by a car, so that at least some other child might benefit from the tragedy, make sure you show up and remind them what murderers they are.

Hey Chris - there is a plethora of 'tards out there you can harvest from. Go get 'em, tiger! I'll nominate you for your "Tookie"... I mean "Nobel". You think ya might want to get on board with the CURRENT conversation? Hmmm? The Court gave the go ahead to put her down and when they showe up to off her, lo and behold she's showing more than ample signs of life. You turkey.

Actually, Jack Straw, there is an increasing tendency and activism to try and block individuals from opting out of procedures or treatments they find immoral.

Remember the huge flap over pharmacists who did not want to provide chemical abortions to people? There is a big segment of the population that thinks that professionals should be forced to do their jobs, even if it goes against their religion.

I think it is only a matter of time before doctors who refuse to snuff out the handicapped get fired, and possibly prosecuted. In hospitals and HMOs, they might actually delegate the killing of patients to special staff, so this would get the particular doctor off the hook. But then you have to ask yourself how implicated you are if you work for an organization that kills patients by following certain protocols which you are still a part of.

The whole thing is crap. I can't imagine how some people could justify withdrawing food, air, or water. Most liberals would argue that these simple things are basic human rights, but they can't see it here. Especially tragic is the fact that disabled people are among the most marginalized members of any society, dismissing their existence on quality of life issues seems to set dangerous precedents (and could be used as an argument for killing people other than the mentally disabled or the unborn).

Sick and weak people are a burden, of course. But civilization itself is a burden when you take into account taxes, regulations, morals, and social obligations. But without civiliation, we'd be animals.

Also, in California, the courts are trying to force Catholic organizations to cover abortions for their employees through the insurance package they provide.

I don't know what has happened, but they might have to start telling people to seek their own health care because they don't want to spend money on abortions.

Last I heard Haleigh is improving. CNN, of all places, reported this. She may yet live. As a child her brain has a better chance of healing after such an occurrence and, though she will be far from normal, she will probably live and have a "burdensome" life, hopefully with her real mother this time.