- the broad question of what should have been done in this case (continue to keep T.S. alive with the feeding tube, or remove the feeding tube), OR,
- the narrower question of what constitutes showing respect for life in this case.
Please post your original response by this Friday at midnight, and then respond to two of your colleagues by Tuesday at 8 a.m.
Here's a link to the article I was reading from with the outline of the case.
In the case of T. Schaivo, the decision of removing her feeding tube was the right decision. She was not able to make her own decisions in the condition she was in, instead we had her family, her husband, and people of the media trying to make the decision for her. It seemed like all of them were making these decisions for their own interest and not really looking at the main picture which was what did T. Schaivo wanted not them.
ReplyDeleteHere we have a women who was incapable of feeling emotions such as sadness, joy, suffering and could not comprehend the state that she was in. She said it herself that she wouldn't want to be kept alive by a machine, whether it be a air pump machine or a feeding tube, this is not a life anyone would want to live. Just being alive doesn't constitute a life, what constitute a life is to be able to have a say for your own wishes and dreams, being able to walk about and enjoy what the world has to offer and to have memories of those precious moments that one can keep dear to their heart. Many things factor into what a life is, not just one thing. Laying in bed and being fed through a tube with no comprehension of suffering or joy is a life no one wants to have.
To show respect for a life, put yourself in their shoes, but this time you are able to feel these emotions, what would your wish be?
I know that "this" is suffering, if you wish to respect her life, let her move on, her present life may not be so grand, but give her a chance in her after life where she can rest in peace.
I respect the courts decision to remove the feeding tube of Mrs. Shivo.
ReplyDeleteTS family want her "alive". What is the harm in keeping TS "alive"? I will not answer this question with financial reasons, because I believe finance should not decide. I will instead say this, TS is an object of affection for her family. The family is selfish in not letting TS past. Why? She is no longer emotionally there. TS cannot reciprocate emotional responses back to her family. She is there physically, but not mentally nor emotionally. She is basically an object for them. Now why would the family want her alive? In hopes of her recovering? Well, brain neurons cannot grow back the brain is the only thing that cannot be healed. That's why stroke victims suffer permanent brain damage. Why keep her alive they because they love her, no matter if she will get out of her "condition" or not. They want her to be "alive". The family cannot accept letting her go. It human nature to mourn when someone dies. The family in this case wishes not to mourn for her. So what's the harm, well this is an unhealthy relationship the family has with Terry.
Terry's husband Michael Shivo wants her to past. Remember her tried for many years and with many different methods in hopes of helping her recover. The damages TS suffered are irreversible and as much as Micheal tried with no success. Michael needs to move on with his own life. Terry life should have past
What is in Terry's best interest? (Imagine if Terry is watching in third person.) This whole ordeal cause fights between her husband and her family. Would she really enjoy watching her family to fight? No Would she want her husband to stay by her side and not move on? No. Michael and Terry's possible wedding vow: In sickness and in health, to love and to cherish; from this day forward until death do us part. Terry is beyond sick, and death came knocking at Terry's door along time ago. I believe Terry would want for Michael to move on, because Terry can no longer be a supporting wife. Does Terry have any dignity? She is being feed through a tube and bathed by another person. Repect for life is allowing someone to die when they cannot sustaine themselves. Respect is giving credence. validation and acceptance to letting nature take it's course. Now I am not opposed to the medical technologies saving lives. Because it does just the opposite it save lives and most of the time these technologies liberates a person to a greater degree. TS in this case is in a vegatative state, medical technology cannot liberate her any further. What I mean by letting nature take is course is allowing scientific data do the talking. She cannot recover. There is no argument against this, she cannot recover, it is improbable, implausible, and impossible.
What is life? In biology I learned that life is being able to metabolize, and having DNA. Check Terry meets these basic definition. So Terry is living but in scientific terms. Now lets analyze the meaning of life deeper. What comes to mind is this, Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. The three works conjointly and one dependent of the others. Terry has life, but she does not have liberty. To have liberty (and to keep it simple) is the ability to have free will and mobility. She has no free will to do "simple task". Lets go deeper. Yes, she can breath and metabolize food by herself, but that is what basically what everyone does unconsciously. So that is not inherent of free will. Her free will is destroyed by her condition. Also she is immobilized another restriction on her liberty. She cannot pursue happiness, because she isn't able to create her own capital. All she has is life, but do not have liberty or the ability to purse happiness. Remember the three works harmoniously.
Terry is basically a prisoner in her own body with no wreck time. Her cell is the confines of her bed. And I believe we establish that prison is punishment.
Maria C. Diaz
ReplyDeleteTerry Schaivo's case really got me thinking. After debating with myself I can honestly say that although it did take way too long, removing the feeding tube was the right decision. Schaivo's condition was clearly determinded to be irreversible so I do not understand why her family would want to keep her living under those circumstances for that long. Her chance of coming out of that vegetative state were slim, to none. And it did in fact require a lot of sources for her to keep living. And also there was just soo many fights between her family and her husband.
Schaivo had stated that she did not want to be kept alive through some kind of machine, and that is exactly what they were doing. Her family was not respecting her wishes, and that to me is clearly unfair. They really should have stopped to think about what Terry would have wanted, instead of being selfish and just thinking about themselves.
On the other hand I do understand that there was no harm being done to Schaivo; she was not in any kind of pain and she was clearly not suffering. But the sad thing was that she was not gaining anything positive from her experience. She was unable to enjoy the beauty of her surroundings, she was unable to enjoy the precense of her family, and im sure it is quite safe to say that Schaivo was no living a happy LIFE. I definitely do feel for the family and I completely understand the fact that letting a loved one go is incredibly difficult, but why keep them there when it's not going to get any better. There comes a point in time when you have to let go of someone, and you have to respect that it is there time to go. And althogh in Schaivo's case she was still biologically living, she was not capable of feeling or experiencing the beautiful, and cherishable moments that life has to offer.
What should have happened in the Terri Schiavo case is that Michael Schiavo should have been allowed to make an expedited compassionate decision to end Terri’s existence. Her life was only on a cellular level. Without a clearer intention from Terri, Michael should have been allowed, as the law affords, to make decisions on her behalf. After three years of trying traditional and experimental therapies Michael had a right to make a decision he felt confidently had been expressed by Terri. Statements attributed to Terri including “I don’t want to be kept alive on machines.” I feel sympathy for the Schiavo family that after 15 years of Terri’s condition not changing or improving they still held hope that her condition would improve. There was no medical basis for this hope.
ReplyDeleteWhat should have also happened in this case is that the legislative process should not have been so easily manipulated. Sound medical decisions can not be made by Congress, Governors, or the President of the United States. Medical decision must be made by teams of doctors, professional, and those closest to the patient. Unfortunately in this case too many people completely uninformed and uneducated in medicine felt compelled to try to make decisions they thought would be most beneficial to Terri or just obviously moving forward special interest agendas.
The case ended as it should have with Michael making the appropriate decision to end Terri’s existence; it just took 12 years too long for that decision to be carried to fruition.
In response to the broad question of what should have been done in the case, although a tough one, I think it was the right decision to remove the feeding tube. According to the article, her neurological examinations were indicative of a persistent vegetative state. There have only been a few reported cases in which minimal cognitive and motor functions were restored three months or more after the diagnosis of a persistent vegetative state due to hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy; in none of the cases was the damage as severe as in this particular case, nor was the period of disability so long. The parents and siblings of the patient suggested that Ms. Schiavo’s condition might improve with unproven therapies but had no objective data to support their assertions. Michael Schiavo was made her legal guardian under Florida law, which made him the decision maker. It is not clear whether Ms. Schiavo would have wanted to remain on the feeding tube due to lack of physical evidence, and based on the fact that she did not sign a do not resuscitate form, but we have to look at the facts in this case. She had no cognitive abilities or awareness of external stimuli. Although keeping her alive provides comfort to her loved ones, the Schindlers needed to accept the painful reality of their daughters condition.IT HAD BEEN FIFTEEN YEARS...SHE WASN’T COMING BACK.
ReplyDeleteIt may seem like a contrary choice/action, but in cases such as Mrs. Schaivo’s the best course of action is to let that person pass on. It is neither apathetic nor callous to allow for life to play itself out as it will naturally when there is very little that medical science can achieve to restore the same vitality to it.
ReplyDeleteThe Schaivo case exemplifies two common human attributes: selfishness and fear of death (or losing loved ones to death). Luckily, for most conflicting value issues participants can align themselves with either religious dogma or alternative (progressive) belief systems. When these two camps disagree on an issue there is very little middle ground that can be found.
Science has come a long way since the time of Jesus Christ, and even farther still since the time of Moses and The Ten Commandments. Religious interpretation of what is respectful of life, as well as what constitutes life is greatly left to interpretation.
I’ll define respect for life as the following: allow all living beings to follow their own minds, hearts and souls in order to achieve some semblance of happiness during their physical time on earth. It also requires that we do not impede the natural course of any living being’s existence; we do not artificially prolong an existence in a state that would greatly diminish their integrity and cause undue harm to their physical being consequently preventing their spiritual existence from moving on.
I’ll define life as the following: in addition to the basic biological components of a functioning body and mind, the presence of a unique and special personality that exists as an intangible “soul” that is the essence of that particular individual being.
The actions of Mrs. Schaivo’s Family were the desperate acts of loved ones trying to hold-on to her for as long as they could. Their fear of mortality prevented them from allowing her passage into whatever awaits us all at the end of our lives. As nice as they perceived their intentions and actions to be, they caused more harm and embarrassment to their daughter for a period spanning 15 years. The body only houses our existence temporarily, we all must come to terms that the body is only our temporary home and we all eventually vacate.
In regards to Terri Schiavo, I would have to say that I agree with the court’s decision in removing her feeding tube. Mrs. Schiavo may have been alive physically, but she wasn’t cognitively. It was stated that there were “…no signs of emotion, willful activity, or cognition,” which in my opinion, is not really living. With that said, it is clear that she was unable to make any decisions of her own in the condition she was in.
ReplyDeleteIt was obvious that in her state of being, as well as the many years she was in, that there was no way Mrs. Schiavo was going to recover back to consciousness. Even though there were no signs suffering on her behalf, her family was. They needed to accept the fact that Terri was not going to magically just recover from this and everything would be alright. Michael Schiavo had recalled his wife saying that she did not want to be kept alive on a machine, and her family wanting to keep her alive was not only going against her wishes, but was plain selfish on their part. The price for keeping one on life support is very costly, and since Mrs. Schiavo’s family had not contributed any money to keeping her alive, nor were any of them name as her guardian; in which they legally had no rights to say whether the plug were pulled or not.
Being in a vegetative state for 15 years has a clear chance that whomever is in that state was not coming back mentally. Aside form her being alive physically, there were no signs showing that she would ever be capable of living life as she once did. Having periods of wakefulness that alternated with sleep, some reflexive responses to light and noise, and some basic gag and swallowing responses, as stated in the text, does not prove that regaining consciousness would be a possibility. Keeping Mrs. Schiavo alive in such a state would make no sense what so ever because she was unable to be there mentally and emotionally.
With that said, how can someone really be alive without the ability to show emotion and perform daily routines? I feel that in order for one to truly be alive, they must have the ability to either be consciously aware of what’s going on around them, or even eventually make it back to consciousness.
Wow. This case does get very complex. After re-evaluating all evidence, I believe that removing the feeding tube was the best choice. Although both parties had a difficult time making a tragic situation, they came to a conclusion of removing her feeding tube for the third time. I understand that letting some go by a pull of a plug may sound easy to do, but all the heartache and pain that come with it can last for a lifetime. Since Michael was made her legal guardian, I believe that his decision to pull the feeding tube out was reasonable. They were married, and no one knew her better than he did. Why do you think Ms. Schiavo made him her guardian? She did it because she knew that no one knew her better than her own husband. I believe that whatever decision her husband was going to make, it would be for the best. After 15 years of hoping and praying for an improvement, there was no evidence that she was getting better mentally or physically. In conclusion, i believe that removing he feeding tube would put her at peace.
ReplyDeleteB Hall
ReplyDeleteThis is a very hard situation to try and choose a side. I can relate to both sides in this case because the husband probably felt that his wife may not have wanted to live the rest of her life that way and he may have wanted to move on with his life. On the other hand her family did not want to letl her go. Their love for her was so strong that they could not just let their daughter die. They most likely had someone tell them that their daughter had a chance. I do believe that having faith can make you wait a lifetime to see if it will happen. I really do not know what I would do in that situation if it were up to me to decide. I do not think I would keep them on for 15 years though but then again I can't really say. I think now she can truley rest in peace.
Who am I to judge anyone's quality of life. For me personally I would rather they remove my feeding tube than to stuck in some bed not being able to function at all, but that is just me. I wouldnt question anyone else if they decided to do things differently.
I believe Terri Schiavo should have had her feeding tube removed much, much earlier. This case involved an incredible number of instances where logic and reason were ignored in favor of blind hope. There was so much emotion involved in this case that all respect for the authority of Terri's proxy, her physicians and even the courts were thrown out the window.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that an inquiry was in order as to whether Michael had a conflict of interest as Terri's proxy after he received $300,000 from a malpractice suit against her physician. However, while looking at a timeline of events that transpired during this case, I discovered that in 1993 Michael claimed that Terri's parents (the Schindlers) demanded that he share his portion of the settlement with them. Although this is merely an allegation and not concrete evidence, the Schindlers did cut off contact with him and attempt to remove him as Terri's legal guardian following the settlement. In my view, this makes their motives just as suspect as his were. (After all, if they were angry that he was seeking financial gain through Terri's situation, and not that he didn't share it with him, why didn't they cut contact with him when he first brought the malpractice suit against the doctor? Why wait until a year later after the appeal was tried and the money was awarded unless they were trying to get a cut?) The fact that Michael attended nursing school after Terri's hospitalization, provided constant care for her, and was documented as having harassed hospital staff to demand that they devote more attention to her are all clear signs that he wanted the very best for his wife's well-being. Furthermore, the guardian ad litem who was appointed submitted a report in 1994 that he had "acted appropriately and attentively toward Terri". All this evidence, combined with the knowledge that there was no clear consensus on Terri's own personal wishes, should have served as reason to uphold Michael's status as Terri's proxy and to defer to his decisions.
That report, however, was ignored by the Schindlers and their supporters who believed in keeping Terri alive. To that end, they repeatedly ignored other reports from experts with intimate knowledge of her condition. For example, multiple doctors who had been involved in her care had expressed their believe that she was in an irreversible vegetative state. Even after a court-appointed neurologist found that 80% of her brain had been destroyed, the Schindlers still held on to the belief that she would recover. It may have been a different story if the Schindlers were financing Terri's care, but at this point, taxpayers were not only paying for her medical care, but also court-appointed guardians, physicians and the courts themselves. What was the point in wasting resources on keeping a barely living woman alive, and paying for the opinions of a parade of experts who were being flagrantly ignored? I understand that this case required special attention due to the complex ethical questions, but I feel that there was too little respect for the judicial process. Since they were using a massive amount of public funds, I believe they should have adhered closer to the rules that govern the public.
It seems to me that in their desperation to hold onto their daughter, Terri's parents had acted so selfishly that even they forgot about what was best for her. Seven years would be an inhumane amount of time to keep any case up in the air, whether it be a custody case, a criminal case or a DUI charge. The actions of her family exposed Terri to an unprecedented amount of public scrutiny, and had she really been able to be conscious of her environment, she probably would have been quite uncomfortable about all the nonsense.
In the case of Terri Schaivo, I respect the courts decision of removing the feeding tubes from her. Like any normal family they were trying to do what they thought was right, but should have accepted the fact that she was in a persistent vegetative state and unable to make her own decisions.
ReplyDeleteMichael Schaivo said that she never wanted to be kept alive by a machine; so removing the feeding tubes would have been the best decision. Even, if there was a slight chance that her condition might show improvement, there was no data to support it. Terri Schaivo wasn't able to show emotions such as happiness, sadness, feel or think. She couldn't enjoy life, make decisions or communicate on her on but was just being kept alive by a machine. She was a prisoner in her own body with no way out.
What would T. Schiavo have wanted for her husband? Would she have have wanted her husband to enjoy the rest of his life or continue the battle with her family enduring the pain and suffering with little hope. I don't think anyone would have wanted someone to be kept alive for 15 years on a machine and feeding tubes.
Medical tests showed that she had severe brain damage to the cells in the brain and spinal cord, and that the hemisphere surrounding her brain was decreasing in size. Even her EKG (electroencephalogram) was flat with no functional activity. So why would they even think that there was a chance for her to recover fully and lead the normal life that she once had. Fifteen years was way too long to be kept hooked up to feeding tubes. A decision to remove the feeding tubes should have been made much sooner, especially if there was no sign of improvement.
Honestly, I would take a very long time deciding myself if I had a situation like this in my own family, just like in Terry Schaivo’s conditions. But looking at this case through the family’s perspective we have to see that they were keeping her alive because of all the love they had towards her and they still had hope that Terry would come out of that state. They also tried to keep her living because they couldn’t bare the idea to let her go or seeing it in the way that they were killing her if they took her off that life support she was on.
ReplyDeleteThen again it’s not a very good or positive idea to have kept her alive for so long. A lot of psychological damage was done to the husband because he had the remorse of continuing with his own life. And the parents also probably suffered more seeing their daughter in that vegetative state wondering if she was suffering or not because there was absolutely no guarantee whether or not she was suffering.
But after evaluating these two opposing sides I think that the best thing that should have been done was to let her go sooner. They waited too long to end with all the suffering because all they were doing was suffering even more by watching their daughter in that state. It was fifteen long years of agony to the family and to hers!! They should have ended with Terry’s suffering because they didn’t know if she was indeed suffering!
It’s a very hard and horrible decision and action to take but it seems like both the family and Terry would have felt relief and peace.
In the case of Terri Schaivo I think that the descision to take out the feeding tube was the right one. The struggle between the family was a just a big media thing, it honestly didnt need to come to that. I dont think they were thinking about what she would have wanted. So the courts decision was the voice of Terri Schaivo and was looking at what was the best thing to do for her and not for what everybody else wanted.
ReplyDeleteThere are a lot of things we have to look at and put ourselves in her shoes. I for one wouldnt want to have my family, friends, and girlfriend see me in that state. I honestly think its a very cruel thing to put somebody's loved ones through on a deep mental and emotional level. So if that would happen i would hope to have a DNR (Do not resuscitate) filled out.
Making a decision on whether your loved one should live with a illness not even oneself can define or having to keep them alive through medication, is a wise decision.
ReplyDeleteOn behalf of the family, it is understandable that when your loved one is sick, we do all the best to keep them comfort and hope for the illness to go away. Then again, they don’t know the pain the patient is suffering, not only physically but mentally. She didn’t suffer any sever physical pain, but having the mentality set that you have a rare illness not even she knew what it was, emotionally effects you. Therefore I consider that some sort of pain.
On behalf of the husband and Courts decisions, it was right for them to remove the feeding tube. They should have obeyed her decisions in the first place; which was removing the tube because she didn’t want to live under these circumstances.
Going through several therapies that made no difference for THREE YEARS, I believe that means the illness had no cure for it and there was no hope for her the illness to go away. As the article also motioned, she had no signs of emotion, willful activity, or cognition; therefore, these conditions don’t fit the standard of actually living as a “regular human being”.
As much pain as this have caused the family, I believe it was the right decision to remove the feeding test tube or leave it in the hands of her decisions, as should have been done in the first place.
-jessica b.
I think that the final outcome of the court decision was a very tough chose to make. However, I approve with the court decision of removing the feeding tube from Terri Schiavo. The reason why I agree with the decision is because during the fifteen year legal battle for Terri Schiavo outcome, there was no change or evidence of her vegatative state improving. Terri was not self conscience or aware of her surroundings. This means that she cannot express emotion such as happiness or sadness and cannot interact with others.
ReplyDeleteAs for Terri's family, they should let her die in peace. The family believes that there is a very slim chance of Terri condition will improve, which gives them a small flicker of hope. However, the fact is that we humans are social animals that live through life by expressing emotion and reasoning. Terri cannot live a life she once had, she is an empty shell that has no cognitive activity in the brain and needs a feeding tube to subtain her. Terri condition may never improve that her chances are as slim as for a man in Contra Costa County winning this week's lottery. As a respect for life, I believe in removing the feeding tube is the the right thing to do because living a vegetative life in not living life at all. IT JUST PROLONGS DEATH!
I respect the decision of the court of removing the feeding tube of Terry Shavio.
ReplyDeleteThough I can sympathize with her family, friends, and many of other people that believe that she should have lived, I don't think that keeping her body alive would have been that right thing to do. although she was physically there, all evidence pointed to her not being mentally alive with no chance of the real Terry coming back.
She stayed in the vegetative state for 12 years, I think that's long enough for anyone that was involved to suffer. Her, her parents, her friends, her husband, and bystanders just following her case. It isn't fair to anyone, especially Terry. What kind of life would have it been for her to just be bed ridden, not able to care for herself and just rotting from the inside out.
Even though it doesn't sound pleasant, especially to her family. I just don't think keeping her alive is and ever will be humane especially in her case.
The decision to remove Terri Schaivo from her vegetative state of being fed by a tube should have been made earlier, much earlier. I believe the right decision has been made because she has no self-awareness whatsoever, so what is the point of her being alive? She didn’t have any emotions. She couldn’t be happy, loving, cherishing, or any other affectionate she would have had. If she could have emotions, I’m pretty sure she would be a happy women and thankful for her loving family and her loving husband. Since she can’t feel any of these emotions at all, there really isn’t a point of her staying alive.
ReplyDeleteI understand this is a hard situation, from both her family’s point of view and her husband’s point of view. These are two opposing views and I would say I agree more to Mr. Schaivo. He actually had the right, as being the patient’s husband, to make the decision for his wife. His decision came to be, and was the correct decision. Mrs. Schaivo shouldn’t stay alive because that caused a lot of stress and arguments and criticism to occur; Especially where Mr. Schaivo and Terri’s family had fights and a lot of stress between one another. I’m pretty sure if Mrs. Schaivo was able to feel emotions and understand her situation, she wouldn’t want her family and her husband to go against each other and fight for her. She would want happiness with one another.
If anyone is alive, the reason must be that they themselves want to be alive. Terri Schaivo said to her husband, “I don’t want to be kept alive on a machine.” She said this herself, so why is she still alive? Why wasn’t the decision of removing the tubes regarding to her message. When they removed the tube from her a couple times, the first time should have been final. That would have been little timing and wouldn’t have caused so much stress for 15 years long. 15 years is a very long time. There is no chance of Terri to get better. She will always be in the state she is in right now, with no conscious awareness and no emotions. What’s the point of keeping her still here when she literally cant be a “wife” or a “daughter”. She is present, but isn’t present in life.
continued... it was too long for one comment.
ReplyDeleteEven though there were no sign of “suffering” from Terri Schaivo, wouldn’t you think she was suffering on the inside? Seeing her family struggle for her, seeing her husband trying to see what he should do, Terri is suffering a lot on the inside. From what Mr. Schaivo said, “I believe that Terri wouldn’t want to be kept alive in her condition right now”. Who would know her best, and know her wants best? Mr. Schaivo would and therefore he should be the one to make the decision of Terri’s life. As the story says, Mr. Schaivo refused treatment for an infection his wife had, but Terri’s parents took action to require treatment and they shouldn’t have took her parent’s claims. Terri’s family didn’t look through views from their daughter’s condition, instead they just looked at it in a way that if they keep on hoping, their wishes would come true and have Terri back in life again. They didn’t respect what Terri’s wants were, they were just selfish and thought for themselves.A wish of Terri’s would have been “remove the tube for me!” there was no hope for recovery, yet her parents still wanted to keep her in that state even longer than it has been already. The court should have decided earlier from Terri’s quote, “I don’t want to be kept alive on a machine.” but they didn’t... So the case had to continue on.
We all understand her family loves her and so does her husband but it’s definitely time to move on, both family and husband. As much as you love a person, you have to be able to let them go when they have to. Terri Schaivo in this case, has to go. She is not making anyone happy and one position in life is to be the reason a person smiles. All she is doing is having her husband suffer and have sadness and her family being worried, hoping and as well as sadness and suffer. The pain to see their daughter be in the state she’s in, why keep that longer and keep her family sad and hoping. Just remove the tube and that’s final. No need to worry anymore or getting hurt on the inside by seeing Terri laying there with the tube. There is no happiness going on whatsoever. Removing the tube is the best idea in this case.
Terry Shiavo was in a Vegetative State in which she had reflexive responses to light and noise but no signs of emotion. To be alive means being able to feel, touch, smell, and from we know she was not able to do any of these things. I believe that the court’s decision was correct in ordering to remove the feeding tube. She was unable to decide for herself and she had mentioned previously to her husband that she wouldn’t like to be kept alive by a machine, her request should’ve been granted sooner and not waited so long. Prolonging her life by the artificial hydration and nutrition was something that she might not have wanted.
ReplyDeleteI’m sure her parents and siblings did not wanted to let her die, and that seeing her in such ugly situation was comforting to them, but at the same time it was very selfish because deep inside they knew that she would not recover, that her illness had no cure. Death is really sad, but is something that we all have to go through no matter how old, wealthy or nice we are. Terry is in a much better place now and most importantly she is finally resting in peace.
Nubia G.
With regards to the Terri Schiavo case, I can understand why her parents wanted so deeply to keep their child alive, yet at the same time I believe that the courts decision to have feeding tube removed was right. Of course a parent will have that hope that maybe their child will get better and come back to them. There is always that hope, but when there is evidence that a person has a slim to none chance of recovery and that the person in the coma is technically brain dead, a person needs to let go. It seems almost cruel in a sense to allow people who in a vegetative state with basically no brain activity continue to be hooked up to tubes and machines.
ReplyDeleteThere is always a grain of hope deep in the hearts of the ones who stay with these people who are brain dead. I couldn’t blame these people one bit! There are rare reports of people coming out of multiple year comas, and they had someone who hoped with them during this time. So why can’t it happen? Miracles happen all the time. Medical achievements are happening all the time.
Whatever Terri Schiavos' wish would have been, whether it would have been to keep her alive or to allow her to die, is what would have constituted showing respect for her life. But if her wish is unknown then it should be decided by the best possible evidence that would show what she would have wanted, and not by what her family or husband should decide. And if no possible evidence can be provided to show what her wish would have been, then there would be no disrespect to her life by allowing nature to take its course.
ReplyDeleteBecause Terri Shiavo did not definitely express what she would have wanted -had she slipped into a vegetative state-, there can't be shown any respect to her life, in the manner of complying with her wish, since it was unknown what her wish was.
She did however express to her husband Mr. Shiavo that she would have not wanted to be kept alive had she been in a vegetative state. In this case, this remark would have served as evidence that she would have wanted to die. And it was by "clear and convincing evidence" that the court concluded that this was her wish. So by letting her die the court showed respect for her life, based on what was concluded to be her wish. It is by her wish that we show respect for her life and not by the wish of anyone else. To base the decision on what her family thought would have shown respect to them but not to Terri's life.
However, lets assume that neither her wish nor evidence of what she would have wanted, could be provided, then it would not be showing disrespect for her life by doing nothing to prevent her death. It may seem horrible to just allow someone to die, especially since we value life very much, but it would not be showing disrespect to life since the life we are letting die did not and even cannot express a wish that we would chose to respect.
I think the best thing for Terry was to have the feeding tube removed. Even though there was evidence that shows that she wasn't suffering or feeling any pain, she herself once said "I don't want to be kept alive on a machine". I personally went through a similar situation (the court was not involved) when my grandfather had pnuemonia and some other kinds of sickness that I can't recall. My family decided we should do all we can to keep him alive and maybe one day he will get better. Looking back at it now, that was a very selfish decision because we really put him through a lot of suffering. He was in bed, unconscious most of the time so he couldn't feel much of anything, his trachea collasped so he had tracheostomy done, he couldn't eat or drink on his own, and whenever he was conscious he'd just curse the nurses. He was really in a horrible state. Loving someone means you have to let them go, and that's what we should have done with my grandfather and the same for Terry.
ReplyDeleteAlice L.
In the case of Terri Schaivo, I think removing the feeding tube was the right thing to do. Although it was heart breaking for her family, it has been 15 years since she has been in a vegetative state and it is time to move on. I do feel empathy of what her family wants, in hope that she will come back, it’s just a matter of moving on after 15 years. But is has been 15 years and that is more than enough time to hope that she will recover, especially because of the consistency that she has not improved within the 15 years she has been a vegetable. I believe her husband, who is also her guardian, wanted the right things for her. He probably knew her best and knows that she most likely did not want to stay alive with a machine hooked up to her. I think letting her go is a good way to move on and having closure.
ReplyDeleteJ.Omaque
From Jared:
ReplyDeleteI think it was the right thing to do to remove the feeding tube. It seems almost selfish to have kept her alive for so long. I can understand a few months but after that it would seem highly unlikely she would even recover. They didn't seem to be thinking about it from her perspective. Can a person really be "alive" (the way we see living) if they can not comprehend existence itself? She had mentioned it herself, not wanting to be kept alive by a machine. They may not have been prolonging suffering for her, but by keeping her alive they take away their chance to make peace and move on.
By keeping her alive they probably hurt themselves more than anything else, her husband wanted to end things and the family wanted to keep her alive because they did not want to let go. It created a conflict and their relationships deteriorated. Not to mention it was more than likely very expensive to prolong her condition for so long. Its pretty sad it had to come to this. I think if they had stopped and really placed themselves in her shoes they would have realized she wasn't truly alive. That they were clinging to her physical body and not to the person she was. The person who was made up of higher bodily functions, memories and comprehension. You take these things away and you're left with, to be a blunt, a vegetable. Whats really sad is these things can only really be looked at this way in hind sight. At the very least she may be seen as an example for future cases...
-Jared Cobbs-
From Colleen Garland:
ReplyDeleteShivo was essentially no longer a person, because she had no conscious mind. She was a shell of a being, only alive biologically. While there was a very small chance that she might come out of her vegetative state, it was a matter of fate and not reason to keep her alive. I think that the fairest way of dealing with the situation would be to remove Shivo’s feeding tube after three months, because it is unreasonable to believe that she could recover after that point, according to medical specialists. I think that it is unfair and disrespectful to Shivo as a former person to keep her body alive when her consciousness departed and would, in all likelihood, never return. Hoping that, through therapy, Shivo would return to her former glorious self after being brain-dead for more than three months (and, in fact, for many years) is absurd because, since the majority of her brain matter had broken down, she would have at least lost all or most motor function and cognition, as is the case with other patients who have recovered from comas or vegetative states. She wasn’t existing as a conscious person, and would not regain consciousness, and so, keeping her alive was not in her best interest, but in the interest of the emotions of her family. Therefore, it was selfish of them to keep her alive, and they should have simply let her die naturally much sooner.
--Colleen Garland
I believe that removing her feeding tube was the right decision. Her husband kept her alive for 3 years before he decided to stop treatment. 3 years is a long time, and indicates that he probably cared about her. He was awarded a settlement for treatment, and I believe the teacher stated the state paid for her care after. This shows that there was no serious negative efects for him keeping her alive, giving him no real motive to kill her. When he believed she would want to die, I do think he was acting in what he believed to be her best interest.
ReplyDeleteI question wether or not the family was acting truely on behalf of their daughter, on behalf of their own attachment and care for her. I question this because the majority of physicians and neurologists all agreed that the chances of her recovery were almost nill, and they did not face the facts. It was mentioned in class that one of the physicians they hired had a political career and gave a diagnosis based off of videos, which makes it appear as if that was a political move made to try and keep the daughter alive, rather than an actual doctoral diagnosis. Because of their unwillingness to accept medical facts, I am led to believe that the family was protecting their daughters life not for the daughters sake, but for their own attachment, and their own desire to have her with them. Generally there is nothing wrong with that feeling, however in this particular case I do believe this attitude was harmful, as the husband had to fight legally tooth and nail against them, despite medical facts supporting his side, and that must of cost him a great deal of time, money, and grief, making their actions harmful, based not off of a wrong motive, but in this case a misplaced motive.
Now I could be wrong about their motives, but it did appear to be a semi-discussed matter that the husband recalled her saying she never wanted to live on a machine. Now people might argue that it cant hurt anyone that she lives, as she was not suffering, and it gives the benifit of comfort and security to her parents that she satys alive. I disagree. Though it mayhave given her parents comfort, the resources it cost the state to keep her alive could be considered harmful, as should her wishes actually have been to die, the resourceswould have been much better used elseware. Also, if it was really her wish to die, it harms her self image, her respect, and her will to be kept alive in her state.
Besides, how alive was she actually? Though she was technically biologically alive, does only being biologically alive constitute "life"? Even birds, dogs, cats, and mice have a consious mind and a purpose, and in her state, which was predicted to be irreversable, she had neither consious mind nor purpose. She was permanently asleep. This permanent "sleep" denied her any ability to function properly as a human, and her brain patterns were almost non existant. How is being permenantly asleep different in any way than death?
I’d like to respond to something Michelle Penick wrote. She wrote “Miracles happen all the time. Medical achievements are happening all the time.” I really agree with these sentiments. Medical technology is moving forward very quickly. Tissue and organ regrowth is a viable possible in the foreseeable future. 20 years ago a diagnoses of AIDS was a death sentence now an individual can live a full life on combinations of medicines and treatments that were not available 20 years ago. We do not know what the future holds in terms of medical breakthroughs and discoveries. I don’t think it would have been feasible or reasonable to keep Terri Schiavo alive waiting on medical breakthroughs and discoveries. With the relative quick integration of medical research into everyday life (as we merge man and machines in the bionic age) it might soon be an option, for a patient in Terri’s condition, to be kept alive if promising research is on the horizon.
ReplyDeleteTo Michelle Penick...
ReplyDeleteI don't believe that miracles happen all the time neither does medical achievements. If miracles are happening all the time, every person who is in a coma will all suddenly wake up to find their family there to embraced them or everyone that is poor will all hit the lotto and become rich. Don't get me wrong, I do believe in miracles, but happening all the time is not plausible. Yes, they happen once in awhile, i can believe and like in the case of medical achievements it takes time and even years to get accomplished. If these two factors were true than T.S. would've been cured in the first few months or years, but after 15 years she is still in the same state. So its very vague to say that these two factors happen all the time.
To Joan H....
ReplyDeleteYes Joan, I do agree that we do not know what the future will hold in terms of medical breakthroughs and discoveries. Medical technology is moving forward and we are able to now keep people alive for a little more longer as in the case of AIDS, but we can't use the term "quickly" so loosely. In the medical field that may be quick, but to the ordinary Joe it may seem like a long time. Saying that medical technology is moving forward "quickly" then using AIDS as an example after that saying it took 20 years to get accomplished does not seem so quick. Keeping T.S. alive waiting for a medical breakthrough is not reasonable and i concur with you. That would make it seem like she was a lab rat and if so, they are showing no respect for a life and same can be said for experiments on animals.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteReply to Sophia:
ReplyDeleteI do believe that Michael had selfless-interest deciding to remove the tube. As you pointed out Michael did go to Medical School after Terry's coma. So he would some knowledge in medicine so his decision would be more educated than Terry's family. He also tried for many years with many different physical methods for Terry's convalescence. I am sure the family tried to, their method was praying. So we have a science going against us and the super natural not answering us. Not meaning to offend religion by that comment.
Michael always had the best interest of Terry through out this ordeal.
To Michille Penick, Joan H
ReplyDeleteI agree with Michelle on the aspect that miracles happen all the time. What odds constitute a miracle? W ould say a miracle is something with the odds of 1-100 thousand or 1-1 million. There are 7 billion people in the world, leaving thousands of openings for miracles. Now I dont know how many cases of these comas there are, but you do hear of these miracles where people recover from their coma. You cannot demonish the family for hoping for that miracle, as they do happen. However giving a miracle a chance and relying on a miracle are 2 entirely different things, and relying on a miracle is foolish. In this particular case, I believe the husband did give the miracle a chance, he waited 3 years, when any time after 3 months was considered irreversable. His family however, refused to let go, and I believe they were relying on the miracle. I believe in this case, the husband did show proper respect for his wife.
As for medical breakthroughs, though it may be possible to regrow organs within the forseeable future, the brain is a very complex organ, moreso than any of the others, and even if you manage to regrow a brain, would the person be the same as they were? Would they still have the same memories, feelings, and identity? Personally I think waiting on medical breakthroughs is also foolish, as nobody really knows when the needed breakthrough will happen. Yes it could be in the forseeable future, but getting to that forseeable future may take quite a while. I Agree with Thom in that context.
Response to Alexis Yick:
ReplyDeleteYour quote: "I understand that letting some go by a pull of a plug may sound easy to do, but all the heartache and pain that come with it can last for a lifetime."
I wanted to say that that quote is very true. Something as easy as 1,2,3 can last a lifetime in someones heart and mind. This situation has happened to many people before, where they make a decision and then they regret that decision, well that might have stayed in their mind their whole life, or at least for a very long period of time. Like you said, unplugging the tube would be a very quick thing to do, but it would hurt many that cared for her, especially her closest loved ones- her parents and husband, and that decision may be in her parent's minds for years and years. They might not be able to get it out of their head for a while, maybe even for a very long time but eventually they need to realize that was the right thing to do and that they were mistaken the whole 15 years keeping their daughter in a vegetative state. That was a decision that was unchangeable, no matter how bad it hurts you, you can't reverse it. It sucks making a mistake and sometimes you can't fix your mistakes either, but you got to live with it and eventually you will forgive yourself. In this case, Teri Schaivo's parents should have figured that this was the best decision for their daughter. If they really think about their daughter's feelings, they would understand this whole situation and would have regreted not letting her go earlier. Unfortunately that didnt happen but still, the decision was made and it was the right decision. So ending this response, good point that you made in your comment.
-Susan La
What I’ve been thinking about is now that it has been almost 5 years since Terri’s feeding tubes were removed how does her family feel in hindsight? Now that life has gone on and the turmoil, conflict, pain, of those awful, chaotic years have, hopefully, passed do they feel they did the right course of action for Terri? I realize we probably won’t know their thoughts but I’d be very interest in knowing how they would feel today. Do they wish that 20 years after her ordeal began that she was still here and would they still be waiting by her bedside for a miracle?
ReplyDeleteTo Susan La:
ReplyDeleteI agree with your basic attitude toward the case but I just wanted to address one point in your reasoning that I felt was weak. You claimed that, "Since she can’t feel any of these emotions at all, there really isn’t a point of her staying alive." I don't think you should rush to include emotion into your qualifications for what constitutes personhood. There is an increasing number of children who are being diagnosed as autistic. Many of them are able to express few emotions other than frustration. One could argue that they "couldn’t be happy, loving, cherishing" as you described Terri in her vegetative state. I'm sure that you're not calling for the euthanization of the estimated 1 in 1000 children in our country who have some form of autism, but one could extrapolate that from the argument that you used.
To Benicia Hall:
ReplyDeleteI think you brought up a good point when you said, "They most likely had someone tell them that their daughter had a chance." I did have a terminally ill family member a few years back who my family and I decided to not resuscitate, but it was a relatively straightforward decision (for us) because there was a clear consensus among his doctors that their was no hope for recovery. You made me realize that it's possible, although I've seen evidence from medical professionals who attested to Terri's permanent state, that her family may have weighed the opinions of other trusted people in their lives (their clergy?) more than those doctors. Although this doesn't change my ultimate conclusion regarding this case, it does give me more insight and sympathy to how the Schindler's must have felt.
In response to Michelle Pinick’s comment I’m a little confused. In the first half of your response you defended the courts decision of removing the feeding tube. Based on the information presented to us from the article, Terri Schiavo had a slim to none chance of recovering, she was in a vegetative state. You said, “It seems almost cruel in a sense to allow people who in a vegetative state with basically no brain activity continue to be hooked up to tubes and machines.” You later went on to say, “There are rare reports of people coming out of multiple year comas, and they had someone who hoped with them during this time. So why can’t it happen? Miracles happen all the time. Medical achievements are happening all the time.” If I remember correctly, you were suppose to decide whether the courts decision of removing the feeding tube was the right decision. Your comment sounds a bit contradictory if you ask me. It seems as though you were more in favor of keeping Terri Schiavo on the feeding tube, so I’m having a hard time understanding why earlier in your comment you agreed with the courts decision.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the comment made by Gerard Z, I agree with some of the points you made. The decision to remove the feeding tube was a very tough one. You said that “there was no change or evidence of her vegetative state improving,” and I agree with that 100%. There was no evidence, not even a glimmer of hope that Terri Schiavo would recover. Fifteen years is a very long time, at some point you have to let her rest in peace. I don’t think using the analogy of a Contra Costa man winning the lotto is one you should be making in matters of life and death…lol…but I get the big picture. Instead of looking at Terri Schiavo like the victim, we must also remember that she caused this on herself. This whole situation could have been easily avoided if she did not starve herself.
ReplyDeleteExcellent discussion, everyone - I'm really pleased at the high level you're arguing at. And your responses to one another are very thoughtful. Keep up the great work!
ReplyDeleteA couple of you forgot to sign your name to your post - don't forget to include your name if it's not already in the profile you used, so I can give you credit for the assignment.
ReplyDeleteAlexis Yick:
ReplyDeleteIn response to your quote "I understand that letting some go by a pull of a plug may sound easy to do, but all the heartache and pain that come with it can last for a lifetime," along with Susan's comment, I agree that making a decision to pull a plug and letting someone's life pass right before your eyes is something that you will always remember. Decisions like that isn't the easiest thing in life to do, but I feel that in this situation, the plug needed to be pulled. Terri Schiavo was laying in a bed, being helpless, because she couldn't do anything with her body. I know that her presence might have brought Michael and her family hope that she could get better, but letting her go was the right decision because it gave her loved ones closure.
Kasandra S:
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the last paragraph of your comment, I agree that for someone to be considered alive, they would need to be conscious. For me to actually know that someone is alive, I would want them to actually respond to me. For Michael to be next to his wife for 15 years while she was in a vegetative state is a commitment, because he never heard her voice and to even know that she was alive, all she did was blink or maybe move just a little. It would of been a miracle for her to recover and be just like a normal person. So with that, I think that letting Terri go was the best decision so Michael would have the right to move on with his life without actually cheating on his wife.
@ Thom
ReplyDeleteYou said: "To show respect for a life, put yourself in their shoes, but this time you are able to feel these emotions, what would your wish be?
I know that "this" is suffering, if you wish to respect her life, let her move on, her present life may not be so grand, but give her a chance in her after life where she can rest in peace."
I agree with you 100% because I think that holding her in a coma does not give her the freedom she needs to live in her afterlife.
@ yajaira
ReplyDeleteYou said: "They also tried to keep her living because they couldn’t bare the idea to let her go or seeing it in the way that they were killing her if they took her off that life support she was on."
I also agree with you because I can imagine the pain and suffering her family and husband is going through. And although she is not mentally there, they can at least have her physically there as oppose to losing her completely.
j. Omaque
In response to Jodine qoute.
ReplyDelete"I don't think that keeping her body alive would have been that right thing to do. although she was physically there, all evidence pointed to her not being mentally alive with no chance of the real Terry coming back".
I totally agree that keeping Terri body alive would not be the right action to do. Terri had no signs of cognitive activity in her brain. She could not think, feel emotion or even aware of her surrounding and her existence. She was just an empty shell, a body with out a soul.instead of trying to preserve Terri body by using machines, the family should let her go and cherish the memories they with her.
In response to Anthony Haung
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you said about her family being selfish in wanting to keep her alive physically whgen they knew that she was emotionally and mentally dead. It is hard to let a loved one go because of the fear of never seein that person again. The most important thing is to do what is best for that person. I believe the husband did not want her to suffer anymore.
Jennifer N.,
ReplyDeleteI also agree with your post, as well as your comment on mine. The part that really stuck to me on your comment was the cheating part. I, too, agree that with his wife’s passing, Michael Shaivo would have the right to move on. It’s not easy to let go of someone, or even accept the fact that they are gone, but I feel that his wife would have wanted him to go on life and be as happy as he could be. Keeping Terri Shaivo on life support would have made everything more difficult for her family as well as his to cope.
Yajaira Ureña,
ReplyDeleteI think you made a really good point when you talked about the psychological damages that occurred. Tension with the family didn’t help as well. In an urgent time of need such as life and death, a lot of psychological damage can take place, and I feel that it was a good point that you mentioned that because I don’t think I read that on anyone else’s post. I also agree that it was a horrible decision when they prolonged her life because that created more problems along with the situation that was already on the family’s hands.
To Pandalove,
ReplyDeletei kinda feel like removing the feeding tube would be the right thing to do as well, just for the fact that fifteen years had passed by. So it would have been a heart breaking thing like you said, and why have her "living" when they could just put her out of her misery so i agree with your decision and just let her pass peacefully.
Devin P.
To Alice Lu,
ReplyDeleteAs a mom I sympathize with Terrys’ parents, letting go of a daughter must be difficult. I also understand that deep inside they wanted to believe their daughter was still conscious, even though doctors had told them otherwise. I agree with you when you mentioned that loving someone means that we have to let them go. In the case of Terry, I believe her parents were focused too much on fighting with Michael They thought he was acting on his own interest and they had forgotten to take into consideration what Michael had said about their daughter’s comment of being kept alive by a machine. Being in a Vegetarian State for 15 years must’ve been really excruciating for Terry.
Nubia G
@ kasandra
ReplyDeleteI also believe that for someone to be truly alive, they have to be mentally and physically present. A person just isnt a person if they cant respond to things. The fact that she was in a vegetative state for 15 years is a bit extreme in my opinion. I think people treated Michael Shaivo a little unfairly. I think he realized that at a certain point it's time to move on, and I dont think he couldve moved on with Terry in a hospital "living" the way she was. The whole case was highly publicized and there always has to be a bad guy. It makes sense that the bad guy would want to make his wife go away, but i hardly believe that was the case. I think you made a good point about him wanting to move on. Once we move on from something difficult we can continue to live our lives, which is what i belive he wanted to do.
@Warpigsalone
ReplyDeleteIt wasn't a question over respect for her life but of life in general. What you were saying refers more to respect for her wishes more than of the "value of life" and all that. In my opinion respect for life would mean respecting what it means to actually be alive. Sentient even. When she dropped into that vegetative state it was like she was no longer a sentient being so far as science is able to determine. She was not conscious of herself, had no perception of anything and likely did not feel anything. Her lower reflexive brain functions were still there though, but "she" as a person was not. Ending it was the proper thing to do.
Even if she had said "I want to be kept alive by a machine" I still think the only proper thing to do would be to take the person off of life support. They probably would not even be able to tell the difference. There comes a point in any situation when we have to stop thinking about how to come across as "politically corret" or whatever and think about things practically. To be absolutely callous, the woman was a waste of resources and time.
@Gerard Z.
I agree, humans are very emotional and often that outweighs reasoning, sometimes so much so that we make terrible mistakes and often get swept up in the stupidity of others. I'm not saying we would be better off as cold calculating machines. But I do think that our code of "ethics" could benefit from some "cold hearts" imposing some laws when things just some wholly illogical. If a person is in a vegetative state and they've been that way for 3 years, and it is well established that nobody recovers after such a long time. It wouldn't be logical to waste the resources in keeping that person alive. Its harsh yes, but people need to learn to face reality. Can't lead a person through the world with rose tinted lenses.
-Jared Cobbs-
Responding to Sophia K:
ReplyDeleteThanks for your point regarding my response and your truthfulness of how you feel and a point i made that you thought was "weak". I can see why you would say that emotion wouldnt be a part of "life" because like plants and trees, they are alive, but without emotion. Terri Schaivo is a vegetable. She was there in person but her mind wasn't there. She couldnt feel any emotions at all and doesn't have self awareness. But responding to what you said about my response, i still think emotion constitutes life. If a person cannot feel any emotions, why are they still alive when they can't be active in any way. Every human, or i should say "alive person" should be able to feel emotions, to get hurt, to be happy, etc. Without feelings and emotions, what's the point of living? You are able to feel emotions because each person has different views on certain things and emotion is a way to show how you feel about something. I think emotion plays a big part of a human's life. Emotion is a way to show someone if you like a certain thing or dislike a certain thing. In Terri Schaivo's case, Terri had said to her husband that she wouldn't want to be kept alive on a machine. If she didnt say that to her husband, her husband wouldnt have known how Terri would feel about staying alive by a machine. From what she said, Terri had expressed her feelings about how she would feel if she were to be kept alive by a machine. If a person doesn't have any emotion, you wouldn't know what they would like. You would want to keep that person happy but without knowing how they feel about certain things, you aren't able to know what they like and dislike, etc.
@ Michelle
ReplyDeleteI am not a parent, but I can only imagine what it must be like to be a parent going through this situation. A lot of people touched on this because its obvious that Terry's parents wanted to keep her alive. I believe that for a parent there is always a tiny bit of hope that everything will turn out ok. Maybe her parents didnt expect a full recovery, but they were optimistic enough to hold on to her for as long as they could. 15 years is a long time, and Im sure that they wouldve waited another 15 years had they been given the chance. Waiting for 15 years had to have been hard on them, and i think it shows how much they loved their daughter. That isnt to say that Michael didnt love terry, but there is obviously a difference in the the love of parents for their children and a love a hisband for his wife. Although i do not agree with their stance on the issue, i cant help but admire them for their perseverance.
@ Nubia G
ReplyDeleteThat part about taking into consideration of what Michael had said about their daughter's comment of being kept alive by a machine, you have to take into account of when she said it and whether it was a serious statement of specifying that if she was in the exact current state that she was in, then he could of used that statement to argue his side. Everybody says things here and there but sometimes when things tend to happen they have a different feel for the situation. But knowing the fact that there were no written documents stating her wishes then you can't really say that it was her desire to have the tubes removed.
-Tommy Saefong
Response to Joan H:
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with your post. You had two very good points that I forgot to mention and would like to recognize. You mentioned how her husband should have legally had the decision as to whether or not they should keep Terry alive. You are absolutely right, as Terry's spouse he should have definitely have the choice. I would understand if he was not acting accordingly to what would benefit his wife, but he obviously respected what his wife would have wanted for her. Also, Joan you mentioned how medical conditions should not be made by congress, governors, etc. and I absolutely agree. They should have no authority whatsoever when it comes down to situations like these.
In response to Michelle Penick:
I too feel sympathy for the family, but I do not feel like they acted with best interests for Terry. You said that mircacles happen all the time and that medical achievements are happening all the time, but I would have to say that I strongly disagree with you. Miracles definitely do NOT happen all the time. They actually don't come around very often. Miracles are rare. I do think that we have advanced with medical achievements but 15 long years of keeping her alive. What were the chances of doctors being able to help Terry? It was clear that her condition was irreversible.
--Maria C. Diaz
@ BeniciaH
ReplyDeleteI agree with you when you said that her family was being selfish by keeping her alive. I also want to add that sometimes it's hard to just say "ok pull the plug" because you will live the rest of your life doubting that decision. "What if we kept her alive? Maybe she'd be alive today..." So it wasn't just selfishness, it was also because her family loved her a lot.
@ yahaira
I think I have to disagree with what you said at the end of your post where you said "it seems like both the family and Terry would have felt relief and peace". Terry might have felt relieved, but I don't think her family would have because they'd live the rest of their life thinking Michael's and the court's decision "killed" their daughter. Some people just can't get over the fact that letting their loved ones go is the right choice, especially when the decision is in their hands. They just want to hold onto their hope for as long as they can or until she died of natural causes (old age) so they don't have to feel guilty of "killing" their daughter.
To Sophia K.
ReplyDeleteGreat point when you mentioned “It may have been a different story if the Schindlers were financing Terri's care. But at this point, taxpayers were not only paying for her medical care, but also court-appointed guardians, physicians and the courts themselves. What was the point in wasting resources on keeping a barely living woman alive and paying for the opinions of a parade of experts who were being flagrantly ignored”? I have no doubt that if that was the case the Schindlers had never waited so long to remove the feeding tube and that the media and all their supporters of keeping Terri alive would had never been so involved like they did. At the end, all those resources were wasted for nothing because Terry died and she might’ve been miserable during those 15 years.
@ PandaLove0715
ReplyDeleteI definately agree that family and friends shouldn't have to suffer and see oneself in such a way to where its painful to even look at them. I for one wouldn't want my family to be in such a sad state to see me. But you have to consider how the relationship was between Terri and Michael before you can actually say that he knew her best and knew what what she wanted. The question of Michael's loyalty to Terri was being talked about due to the fact that he now lives with another woman and had 2 kids. It could be that he did it out of his own interest to move on to another woman and finally brought up the prior statement "I don't want to be kept alive on a machine."
-Tommy Saefong
@DominusSapientia
ReplyDeleteThe question wasn't about respect for life in "general", but about the respect for life "in this case". Respect for life in general is too broad and would include animals and other things as well. My answer was: to show respect for life, in this case the life of a person in a vegetative state -with little chance of returning-, would be to comply to what they would have wanted to be done. If a person would want to be kept alive, however absurd the chances of returning might seem to anyone else, then by yielding to that wish we would be showing respect for life, in this case theirs. We would not be showing respect for life, if that life clearly stated that it wished to be kept alive and we disregarded it by saying "it's not practical enough to do so". However that does not mean that we must use every possible resource to keep that person functioning, in complete disregard of the highly unlikely chance that they might return, but that we must at least make a genuine attempt at keeping their wish. By doing so we show respect for life.
-Javier A.
@Thom
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, the decision should have been left to Terri and not to anyone else. Which is why I believe the decision dragged on for so long, because neither party could agree on what she would have wanted. I liked how you supported your decision based on the emotional side of what it means to be alive, because it shows the kind of thoughts that the family must have been thinking of, and of what they wanted to share again with Terri; the "memories of those precious moments".
@Sophia K.
I enjoyed reading the extra information that wasn't in the article above. You have a well informed argument with good supporting evidence. You provide good evidence that shows that Michael S. was most likely acting on the best interest of his wife and of how the courts dismissed clear evidence, from many doctors, that Terri S. was suffering brain damage.
-Javier A.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGeneral Response: (Miracles & Medicine)
ReplyDeleteFirst, I would have to say that indeed miraculous things happen all around us every day. The sunrise, new life, a baby's first step, etc. There is a simple song from "Flower Drum Song" (1961), that is titled "100,000 Miracles", and it's purpose is to remind the listener that miracles aren't always large nor are they in response to what we most want (prayers, hopes, dreams, etc.).
For those of us that believe in miracles, we have to bear in mind that the type of miracle required to resuscitate a person in the same condition as T.Schaivo would be extraordinary. The equivalent of bringing a person back from the dead after a few days (hint: it hasn't been done in over 2,000 years!).
The length of time her family held onto her body in hopes that she'd recover was a great show of faith, love, but above all selfishness. Letting go is only hard for those of us who can't let go. There is nothing that can be done against death; we all succumb to the disease of dying eventually.
Secondly, the type of medical break-through required to resuscitate a person in a similar condition as T.Schaivo is not within the foreseeable future. It would actually take a series of medical break-throughs before it could conceivably happen.
The human brain/mind is so complex they have barely scratched the surface of what it's truly capable of, and how to help mend/cure any of its myriad of ailments. The muscle atrophy, brain tissue loss, and the simple act of aging all would play into what she'd require for a complete recovery as well.
Then, what is happening metaphysically? Does the soul linger in such a situation? Would there be a "person" present to revive? The presence of a body does not necessarily mean the presence of a soul. Has the family done more harm than good by condemning her soul to suffer for all that time if it is indeed lingering within the body?
It would definitely be like purgatory or hell to have to lay in such a state unable to move on. When it comes to matters of mortality, whether or not you find it hard, you must be willing to let go. When someone else is dying, it isn't about you. It isn't about how hard you find it, because at the point in time it is about the person passing on. All you can really do is let them go.
In response to Maria C. Diaz
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your point of view towards this case. But one thing that left me thinking about your comment when you said that Terry was not feeling any pain. I don’t think that we can be too certain about that because we don’t know what she could have been feeling, she can’t move but are we really that certain she couldn’t feel anything? Sorry this wasn’t meant to be a rude comment but if you researched and proved that she wasn’t feeling pain then ill totally agree with you but until then I think the best thing was to let Terry go sooner and not keep causing pain to the family and possibly to her as well.
In response to Michelle Penick
ReplyDeleteI think your comment was the only one I read saying that miracles can happen even if a person has years being in a comma. It’s always good to have an optimistic mind like that and probably because it also helps the suffering family gain strength and confidence. But then again I agree to when you said that it also seems cruel to have the person hooked on all the machinery to keep them alive. It probably only makes the family feel even more impotent about the state their loved one is in seeing them in that way.
To Joan H.
ReplyDelete"I’d like to respond to something Michelle Penick wrote. She wrote “Miracles happen all the time. Medical achievements are happening all the time.” I really agree with these sentiments."
I believe medical achievements and miracles are are not synonymous. Miracles is the "winning" of going against something improbable. Just because someone says something cannot be done, and you do it make it a miracle. Miracles is going against astronomical odds. Where medical achievement differs is that medical achievement is a break though in modern medicine. We reached a new standard if you will, what was thought impossible is now possible thanks to greater understanding. It is understanding and knowledge that helps us and not miracles. Again miracles goes against odds. Medical achievement goes against what was though impossible due to lack of knowledge. Technology and not the super natural.
Responding to Michelle Penick:
ReplyDeleteI believe in miracles, but also at the same time I know that the probability of having a miracle are minimum...for experience I can tell you that is really hard to chose the option of disconnect the person from the tube, but when you see that the person you love is suffer and at the time the possibilities of a recovery are less each day, you think that that option is the best...One of my uncle was in coma for 6 months and we never saw any recovery. What we saw was the he was getting worst, the tube destroyed his mouth, and also he lost a lot of weight. His sons suffered a lot when he was disconnected, but they fell better because they know that he is resting in peace without any pain..
In response to Colleen Garland
ReplyDeleteYou make a good point about keeping Terri body alive would not be in her best interest. Terri brain lost almost all of the neurons which cause her to have no cogitive activity. Without neurons to send electrical signals to the whole nervous system, Terri cannot control her body or even feel pleasure or pain. Terri will never recover from her vegetative state because neurons cannot grow back. The family should of known that Terri will not be coming back even when 15 years have passed with no change in her condition. This lead me to suspect that there is something more than the family did not want to remove the feeding tube just because of the pain of letting Terri go. The family could have gone against Michael Shaivo decision to spite him or they just love the attention from all the publicity they were getting. Either way it was selfish to keep Terri alive when there is no change in her vegetative state. If there was medical technological advancement in the next 15 to 20 years, such as restoring dead brain cells or articial brain implants. This will still not help Terri because she may have to relearn how to walk, talk, and so on. By that time her body would of aged and be bedridden for so many years. A lot of resources have to be put into in restoring Terri that their is no evidence or guarantee that she will be the same person. This also raises an important question that I had to ask myself, "what is the value of a life?"
The most wise choice was taken by removing the feeding tube. It actually should have been removed after that 3 years of experiment and really shouldn't have extended on to 15 years. The financial burden that was put on her loved ones and supporters was too great. Though it states that Michael was criticized for being motivated by financial greed, you have to consider the expense of keeping Terri in the hospital.
ReplyDeleteMichael's loyalty to Terri was also being questioned due to the fact that he now lives with another woman whom he has 2 kids with. He may have did it out of his own interest but you still have to consider the burden that was put on him. He also states that Terri made a statement about being kept alive on a machine which he claims is the reason he decides to accept the neurologists' diagnosis. Although Terri had no specific wishes stated on a written document or of any proof, she may have said that "I don't want to be kept alive on a machine." Based off of that information, that is not a good enough reason for Michael to have the tubes removed for the reasons that people say things they sometimes don't mean. When they find theirselves in the situation it may be different. If she clearly stated that if she was in a vegetative state then it'll be different but with the information given you can't conclude that having the tubes removed was what she really wanted.
^^^^^^^^^^^
ReplyDelete-Tommy Saefong
I believe that in Mrs. Schaivo's case the right decsion was made by taking here off of the feeding tube and letting her pass. I believe that people can bounce back and miracles can happen but at the same time you have to be realistic. I personally, havent had to make a decsion like this so i can't really speak on the difficulty of having to make that choice but considering the condition that she was in and also respecting her own descion when she said that she said she didnt want to be kepty alive by a machine. Yes i know that her family loves her and doesnt want to let her go but in the state she is in she is already gone. So why would you want to keep her around? She cant respond doesnt show any emotions she cannot do anything but lay lifeless in a bed hooked up to machines that are keeping her alive and unfortunatly cost alot of money. Plus who would want to really watch one of there family member stay around like that. If thats the case some cultures make a shrine in there own house and bring gifts and have a room dedicated to them as if they are still there. Bottom line why keep the suffering and not let her go on like she requested anything else is just selfish on their behalf.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Susan La's post i too believe that the decision should have been made earlier as well. I think 3 years in as a vegetable is a pretty long time to keep someone alive by machine especially when you are not seeing any improvement. How soon do you guys think the decision should have been made?
ReplyDeleteexcuse me 15 years that too me is just ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of T.Schaivo,i believe that the decision of removing the feeding tube was the right decision.She was in a vegetative state for fifteen years and her condition never improved,even thought she showed some type reflexive responses there were no signs of emotions,If she didnt showed any signs of recovery in the first years, the percentage of getting out of the vegetative state was getting smaller by the year. Every person has a different meaning of life, for me life is so much more than just being in a bed indefenitly. Being alive does not mean that you have to be connected to a machine in order to survive. I can't imagine how hard it must be to make the decision of letting somebody go it must be really painful , lets be honest to be alive is to enjoy all around us, feeling all kind of emotions, such as anger,sadness, and happiness. She wasn't capable of feeling anything and her condition was irreversible, thats why they made the dicision of letting her go,now she rest in peace.
ReplyDeleteresponse to J. Omaque..
ReplyDeleteyou & I feel the exact same way of why her feeding tube should have been removed. When you say that letting her go is a good way to move on and have closure, I definitely agree on that. After 15 years of hope & faith, it was time for her to rest at peace. I understand she was living on feeding tubes just to keep herself barely alive, but knowing that her physical body is no longer there, is a huge deal. After pulling the plug, it was finally time for closure. No one lives forever, but her spirits will be with her family forever..
in response to LIZ..
ReplyDeleteYou couldn't be more correct. I agree when you say that life is so much more than surviving on tubes. Everyone does have emotion, and with Ms. Schaivo, she had nothing left in her but a few reflexive responses, as you have stated in your opinion. Although everyone does want to live life happy & healthy, it is easier said than done. Its impossible to live a happy & healthy life without any doubts or harsh obstacles that take part in your life. Unfortunately for Ms. Schaivo, her cardiac arrest lead to heartaches and pain left with her family. Now she is in heaven where she rests at peace.
I thought everyone would be interested to read this point from Pope Pius XII. The Pope is the highest religious figure here on earth. It is directly related to Schaivo's case, the broader subject of Euthansia, and what constitutes extraordinary measures to preserve life (and the obligation to do so).
ReplyDeleteAn address given by Pope Pius XII (Catholic, in case you don't know who the Pope is) to medical professionals on the matter of preservation of life:
"The request of plaintiff for authority to terminate a medical procedure characterized as "an extraordinary means of treatment" would not involve euthanasia. This upon the reasoning expressed by Pope Pius XII in his "allocutio" (address) to anesthesiologists on November 24, 1957, when he dealt with the question:
'Does the anesthesiologist have the right, or is he bound, in all cases of deep unconsciousness, even in those that are completely hopeless in the opinion of the competent doctor, to use modern artificial respiration apparatus, even against the will of the family?'
His answer made the following points:
1. 'In ordinary cases the doctor has the right to act in this manner, but is not bound to do so unless this is the only way of fulfilling another certain moral duty.
2. The doctor, however, has no right independent of the patient. He can act only if the patient explicitly or implicitly, directly or indirectly gives him the permission.
3. The treatment as described in the question constitutes extraordinary means of preserving life and so there is no obligation to use them nor to give the doctor permission to use them.
4. The rights and the duties of the family depend on the presumed will of the unconscious patient if he or she is of legal age, and the family, too, is bound to use only ordinary means.
5. This case is not to be considered euthanasia in any way; that would never be licit. The interruption of attempts at resuscitation, even when it causes the arrest of circulation, is not more than an indirect cause of the cessation of life, and we must apply in this case the principle of double effect.' "
Double effect - a set of ethical criteria for evaluating the permissibility of acting when one's otherwise legitimate act (for example, relieving a terminally ill patient's pain) will also cause an effect one would normally be obliged to avoid (for example, the patient's death.)
Another FYI:
ReplyDeleteIf you want to look into more about where that Pope quote is from look up Karen Ann Quinlan. Her very similar case set many precedents for right-to-die legislation.
Kelan,
ReplyDeleteYour post brings up some important points that people have thought about, and that we've touched on, such as whether there's a legitimate moral distinction between causing to die and letting die (where we're capable of prolonging life with intervention).
I don't think the doctrine of double effect would apply here - it's related to issues like giving patients at the end of life large doses of morphine to manage pain, despite the knowledge that such large doses will hasten the end of life (so the intended effect is the relief of pain, and the hastening of death is a "secondary" effect which, since it isn't the *intended* effect, is acceptable as an adjunct of the pain relief). If I remember correctly, I don't think such a thing was at issue here.
It's also a nice example of the division among various religious leaders regarding the acceptability of removing life support. Since the Catholic Church has such a strict hierarchy (and, therefore, you might suppose that it would result in a single, clear-cut, answer), it provides an especially vivid example. The Vatican under Pope John Paul II (who was Pope at the time the Schaivo case was being adjudicated) claimed that it would not be acceptable to remove her from her feeding tube - so you see that there appears to be division even within the leadership of the *same* religion over these questions.
You should note that the Pope is the highest authority in the Catholic Church; he has no particular authority to anyone not a member of that church, so it's not accurate to describe him as the highest religious authority in the world.
Prof. Boyle,
ReplyDeleteThank you for responding to my post, and thanks for the correction about the Pope! I'm not Catholic so I should have been more specific with what I meant in defining him. I'm mostly happy that I finally got a response from someone.
It seems that the catch with most religions is that they contradict one another and sometimes even themselves. However, religion's most common attribute, the thing they can agree on, is that each claims to be the one true path to whatever their path leads us to.
Just as pointed out by Socrates in Euthyphro, it's the tough questions/issues that do not have measurable (verifiable) answers that religion leaves us uncertain. I guess that's why we're stuck in perpetual debates such as these.
It's even more complicated than that - but this discussion makes for a great jumping off point for tomorrow.
ReplyDeleteWith so many responses, not every one will get traction, but maybe we can think of a way to try to get more comments responded to - I'll think about it.
Aiza O.
ReplyDeleteRemoving the feeding tube of Terry Shavio is better than keeping her alive with nothing to do and stay in a coma for more years.
She's living a dead life. I think she deserves to rest in peace now. Letting her live like a corpe is like torturing her and her love ones because the chances of her to become a real conscious person is, is impossible to happen.
When will we know our points for this post?
ReplyDeleteI'm working on the spreadsheet now, Kelan.
ReplyDeleteThe spreadsheet with your grades is up; there were three people I couldn't identify, so if you posted as:
ReplyDeletejlogzm, celo, or Jennifer B, please let me know who you are so I can give you credit.
You could earn up to 100 total points for your post, and 50 points each for the responses. Grades are broken down for each section of the assignment.
Let me know if you have questions; see you Tuesday.
https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0ByzgdxQA0lPVMjQ1MGRjODgtZmFjZi00MDk1LWFiYzgtMmI0MmM4MWI1MWIw&hl=en
I think that her husband had every right to remove her feeding tube. Even though her wishes were not stated, I know-having been married for ten years myself-that my husband knows me better (as an adult) than my parents: we shared very intimate moments togerther, as husband and wives do.
ReplyDeleteIn showing respect for life in this case. I don't think I would want to have a life unlike the life that I have now. Being able to laugh,cry,love,learn or to just be human. I know that I wouldn't want to be a burden to my family financially or emotionally.
People/family surrounding this woman were somewhat selfish in some aspects, They could have just agreed on a time that would allow everyone to say good bye.
from a religious stand point, ending someone's life is totally irrational and should be left up to God. However, in this situation, T.S. had no brain activity and was no able to make her own decision. T.S. was on life support for many years while the family waited for a change in the situation, but while nothing had changed, they decided to end her life. Im not sure if this was the best decision or not. but T.S. is now out of any pain and misery that might have been occuring.
ReplyDeletein response to THOM
ReplyDeletei agree with you. maybe they did make the right decision. i never thought about her not being able to have feelings or emotions. i dont think anyone woul dwant to live that way.
Regarding the Schaivo Case, I believe that it is best to remove the feeding tube.
ReplyDeleteWHY?
Personally, when its time its time and in this case it was time to go. She was on the feeding tube for 15 years of course that she didn't say whether or not to remove the tube but it is only reasonable. Yes, her family didn't want to remove it to have her alive with them but technically, she was in vegetable status; she couldn’t move, talk or show any kind of emotions towards her family. with that being say, why would you want your wife, sister, daughter, family member to suffer and be in that stage? It is only fair for herself being to let her go. I am sure no one wants to be in that stage of living, if that was me I would rather take that tube myself.
Alexander Tom,
ReplyDeleteYes, I agree it is only fair to let your loved one go and putting yourself in their shoes will only show you and make you feel what you think you must do. It is completely unfair to have your loved one be in a stage in which they are just laying there looking like a dead person with opened eyes, quite scary I'd have to say. Not only is it unfair for the person being in that stage but also it is very depressing personally to know that that person is only in bed and selfish to put them through such discomfort.
Leslie Lopez,
ReplyDeleteYou are vewing things from a religious point of view, and yes it makes sense to let God decide what happens in this case but at the same time after 15 years of this individual being in vegitable stage (feeding tube) put yourself in thier shoes. Would you like to be like that for such a long time? I don't think so. Also, we agree with how you said that we dont know whether or not she was feeling any pain or discomfort from bein in this stage, since she could not speak or show emotions.
Overall, I still believe that removing the feeding tube was the right thing to do.
@Celo
ReplyDeleteI do believe in God and the miracles he can do. I had once had this experience before, similarly to Schaivo’s case. It was my grandfather on my mother’s side. I remember the day my mother left to go overseas, my grandfather had a major heart attack and he was on a comma for a long time. Hospital is so expensive; my grandmother was almost begging for money or what they call that time as a donation. We were almost losing are hopes and about to quit then sudden movement from my grandfather’s hand was sighted. We all thought he’s never going to make it any longer except my grandmother who loves him so much. We all do, but my grandmother’s love for him is so strong than even God felt it and awarded her by giving my grandfather an extension to live with her.
Aiza O.
@LM
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. Living with your spouse and sharing everything makes it as a stronger relationship than with anyone else. Even me, I think my friends know me better than my parents because they are the one I am always with, I could share secrets with, and comfortable to be around. But I am not saying that they would have the rights to make a decision like what Schaivo’s spouse had. The husband was the one who was suffering from the situation so why not let him make the decision. It is true that sometimes for parents it is hard to let go and being selfish is becoming their option to obtain power but it is wrong. Letting go is a way that could help to move on.
Aiza O.
Thom said….
ReplyDelete"I agree with your thoughts and comments on what constitutes a life. Just being able to have a say on my own wishes and how I want to spend my life is definitely important to me. In no way would I want to have my family suffer and longer than necessary of my demise. Nor would I want their last memories of me lying in a hospital bed with tubes supporting my life functions."
As hard as it may be to let go of someone you love, that most humane thing to do is to "let go". As you mentioned no one really knows what the after life has to offer.
I feel like by keeping someone alive unless they have a DNR, is respecting someones life point blank. The only problem with this story is that fifteen years passes while she is in a coma. That can be a real tragic situation because you have no idea how she can be feeling..she may be experiencing the worst pain in the world, or just suffering in side and we wouldnt know anything about it. Im just saying 15 years is a very long time, i think the right thing to do would be to take her off life support and let her go in peace. And i feel like that should have put the family at peace to knowing she went ok and not struggling. Because in all reality they had no idea if she would ever wake up or not...and as i said before fifteen years...thats a long time, the only right thing to do would be to take her off life support and let her rest in a better place.
ReplyDelete-Devin Penix
Benicia,
ReplyDeleteI honestly agree with you. Choosing a side is really hard in this situation; loosing someone you love is one of the worst things that can happen in one’s life. Yet, sometimes it’s best to let them go then suffer, not only physically but mentally. Knowing your sick and is living through a tube it’s pretty harsh. In my opinion I would also have them remove my feeding tube as well. As hard as it would be for my family it’s the best for my health. Suffering mentally is really the worst, having to be distracted from my sufferance rather than think about it all the time is hard.
-jessica b
benhay said...
ReplyDeleteI agree that removing her feeding tube was the most humane thing to do at this point. The fact that her husband kept her alive for three years showed that he had hope for some time. In questioning the family motives, I can only speak from experience, losing a loved one is truly hard to accept. I know how hard acceptance comes with that process. I think that the family was simply holding on praying and hoping for a miracle.
I can remember like yesterday being in a similar situation, and no matter what anyone said - doctor's included - I didn’t want my dad to leave me. To some extent it brought me comfort knowing that he was still alive even if it was artificially. It wasn’t until I could look at the bigger picture and see what was best for everyone, including my dad, that I was able to "let go" and "let God".
I must say that it was probably the hardest decision that I have ever made in my life. But, I also knew that he would have wanted it that way, so compassion for that family I do have.