General discussion

Locked

Controversial life decision

By jkaras ·
Here in Orlando there is a case that is getting national headlines. The case in question is regarding Terri Schiavo. She is a woman who had a heart attack/ stroke over 13 years ago that left her in a vegitative state. The case is a right to life/right to death controversy.
She has been in this state without the ability to communicate effectivly while in this awake coma. She can smile and coo like an infant but cannot sign like blinking of eyes to signify concious though or understanding. During this time the husband who has done questionable things when dealing with the situation and contends that they talked as husband and wife if a situation ever happened she would choose death. Her parents have fought to keep her alive not willing to let go contending that he didnt invest the insurance money for recuperative therapy despite doctors that contend that she is brain dead and that no therapy can change. He has since the incident has fallen in love with another and having a baby getting on with his life wishing to remarry. He has fought a legal battle to terminate her life to end her suffering and won. The only way to do this was to remove her feeding tube and starve to death. Our Gov. Jeb Bush abused his powers and overturned the court's ruling stopping the death sentence after 5 days of starvation. Whether he did it for political reasons or right to life, he broke the law stalling the already long awaited release of wasted life.

This fight is about not having a living will documented in marriage causing abiguity. I think it is wrong to have it in writting and that your spouse is legally responsible to carry out your wishes. Regardless of the parents still alive, when a man a woman join in matrimony they are one and that responsibility is theirs and no one elses regardless of the mistake of spouse. Also I cant imagine anyone wanting someone they love to live in that state without the ability to live life experiencing the good or the bad, to me that's tourture and it shouldnt have gone longer than a couple of months to determine recovery. What do you feel is right about living or death? Government intervention or family?

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

91 total posts (Page 2 of 10)   Prev   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next
| Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

uh oh

by Cactus Pete In reply to medical resources

But now you've gone into another realm all together. What happens when the money runs out? The doctors just let her die because they're not being paid?

Extrapolating - my life is only worth the money I can bring in.

It seems far more humane to let someone die with respect and dignity than to use up all the money and say, "Guess you're not worth it anymore. See ya!"

Collapse -

John you've missed the point entirely

by HAL 9000 Moderator In reply to medical resources

If we where to keep everyone alive by intrusive medical means there must be a point where they just run out of equiptment to keep people "alive" and those that may benifit from this equipment don't get it because it is tied up with others who have little to no chance of recovery. What I'm think about here is the "Big Picture" and not an indivual case as there remains the posibility to keep people "alive" indefentialy by intrusive medical means but there is a lack of equipment for a "Large Scale" use of this policy.

The woman in question might only now be getting fed through a tube and having waste removed by similar means but this can't continue as if what the doctors have said is correct there must be a respirator involved which can only be used for 9 days before a traciotimy is performed or severe infection will develop that will lead to death.

So even in this very limited case how many respirators are available in this hospital?

How much do they cost to run?

How much does it cost to care for this woman?

Who is paying for this?

Don't get me wrong I don't think much of the husband in this case but there comes a time when the realities have to be faced. I would not like to see any person denied medical equipment because there was none available because it was all being used by other people with little to no hope of recovery.

This is a case of wishful thinking by her family members as anyone can see anything when they really want to and I would prefer to take the advice of several Doctors rather than a self interested family member who's main motivation is questionable.

Sorry but I've seen far too many people kept alive at the insistance of family members and this only increases the suffering and pain as they want to see improvments and are hurt far more when the person dies because they have deluded themselves into believing that they are seeing improvments when in fact there are none there.

Collapse -

Who is paying?

by john_wills In reply to John you've missed the po ...

If that is your question, I think I've already addressed it. I do not actually know who is paying to keep Mrs Schiavo alive, and that complicates matters. To simplify judgement we should start with the assumption of no government expenditure (except in legal hearings) and no insurance. Afterwards we can factor in the obligations of government and insurance. And when they have no more obligation it's up to private persons, none of whom can be blamed either for spending the money elsewhere or for using it to keep Mrs Schiavo fed.

Collapse -

That's correct

by HAL 9000 Moderator In reply to Who is paying?

While I know absolutely nothing about this case in question other than what I've read here and I'll admit to being more than a bit confussed by some of that have been posted.

Someone has to be paying for this and more importantly if she is "Brain Dead" as has been suggested by the Doctors there must be other life support equipment involved if only to keep her breathing.

But what concerns me more here is the fact that medical equipment is being tied up on someone who does not have a good chance of recovery and this same equipment could be used for someone else who may stand a chance of recovery if they could have the use of it. Otherwise it's all a bit "Airy Fairy" for my liking.

Collapse -

Col

by Cactus Pete In reply to Who is paying?

I wonder what condition the rest of her organs are in. I hope that, when ever it is she passes, her good parts are passed along to others who could benefit from those...

Collapse -

That would be the right thing to do

by HAL 9000 Moderator In reply to Who is paying?

However I've got the impression that there are other forces at work here and what is best is no longer a question that is being looked at.

Collapse -

I agree

by finmedmgr In reply to medical resources
Collapse -

Every family is different

by finmedmgr In reply to Then there is also the qu ...

Maybe the person's life is worth more than monetary wealth. Can't take it with you

Collapse -

After 13 years

by HAL 9000 Moderator In reply to Every family is different

You can't live without it either, but more to the point how many others have died as a result of the equipment not being available when needed elsewhere?

Also what makes one person's life more important than anothers?

The fact that she got there first should not be the only reason to deny any others the posibility of life support equipment what I was trying to get across is the fact that there are only so many of these units at any hospital and when they are all in use that meands that others have to go without do you consider this fair?

Collapse -

Simple, when in doubt

by finmedmgr In reply to I appreciate your reply b ...

Don't mess with it. Leave her alone to live in whatever state she is in. If she becomes able to communicate in some manner then that's fine.

Back to Community Forum
91 total posts (Page 2 of 10)   Prev   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums