Post Edited (TGB) : 3/21/2005 12:34:26 PM (GMT-6)

The question I’d like to discuss is what may or ought to be done in situations where the wishes of the PVS victim cannot be established. Here’s the thing. Some will argue on the basis of the inherent sanctity of human life that WE not make that choice for somebody in such a condition. So we’re duty bound by such sanctity to keep such a person alive. But I’m thinking, OK, if the sanctity of life is basic, or inherent, and not chosen, then it should preclude the person herself. So we ought to be arguing that any person be prohibited from establishing via a living will that the plug be pulled under any circumstances. The sanctity of life would render such an action akin to suicide. No person has the right to determine that their life be ended in such a situation. That would violate the sanctity of human life just as much as would our determining it for another person in such a state.

What d’ya say?

See, I don’t want a Spartan society in which imperfect infants are tossed over the city wall because they can’t contribute what WE think is something meaningful to society, or a society in which the elderly are euthanized because they’re a burden. See, we’ve proved over and over again that human beings are sick enough to push what might really be a legitimate loving way to bring closure to a situation like Terri Shiavo’s to illegitimately determine that any elderly person, or the mentally handicapped, or disabled people, etc., can’t live a purposeful existence and so ought to be euthanized. Does the sort of total and irreversible inability of self-awareness that obtains in PVS justify euthanasia? I don’t want to answer “No” without really looking at it. Not sure why I’m not automatically jumping at that answer either.

Tom

Terri's church has spoken out against leaving her to starve to death

http://catholiccitizens.org/platform/platformview.asp?c=23210

http://catholiccitizens.org/platform/platformlist.asp?p=164

Post Edited (sparknheart) : 3/21/2005 1:36:25 PM (GMT-6)

Good point, Tom. 

We’re crossing a fine line towards legalization of suicide.  Heck, wouldn't most suicidal people assert such claims regarding their poor “quality of life”?  How about the homeless, the addict, the elderly and the handicap?   Hmm… life isn't going to good lately, my mental health is poor.  Maybe life just isn't worth sustaining. I’m tired of this world so I should just opt to check out.  Darn it, it’s my right, and um yea..my child can follow suit if they feel so inclined.

Hey Meph,

Have you legally documented your wishes with a “Living Will?

http://wings.buffalo.edu/faculty/research/bioethics/lwill.html

Post Edited (TGB) : 3/21/2005 3:25:59 PM (GMT-6)

Wow  follow the money trail, dude. How much money could be saved by the big health insurance companies if they could only ask old folks to opt to check out?  Better yet, how about if the insurance companies could just pay off Job’s (types) friends and relatives. Grandpa just doesn’t have the same spring in his step anymore. He complains all the time…poor guy, I wonder if I should just tie a knot in his oxygen tube and put him out of his misery? The old fart or insurance money, hmm… old farts or money? old farts or money? old farts or money?

Post Edited (sparknheart) : 3/21/2005 4:19:52 PM (GMT-6)

Post Edited (AtTheWell) : 3/22/2005 1:28:14 PM (GMT-6)

Post Edited (MephEternal) : 3/22/2005 4:40:33 PM (GMT-6)

Well, here’s my thoughts about this one.  One of the main things I’ve heard about this is, “If person-x said he doesn’t want to live in a PVS, then we should respect his wishes.”

1. What specifically is a “vegetative state”?  That seems very ambiguous.  (People who sit in front of TV’s all the time are called couch potatoes… hmm, maybe that’s not a vegetable, but it’s still a food!  Should we put them out of their misery? They offer nothing to society while watching TV, right? j/k)  Really, I’d consider a “vegetative state” where a person has no brain activity, they’re on respirators, heart pumping machines, kidney machines, etc.  (Second thought, Idaho could be a vegetative state, right?  Oh… never mind.  That’s potatoes again.)

2. What about people who are chronically depressed?  Can’t get out of bed? Paraplegics? The desperately poor and hungry?   Should we offer doctor assisted suicide for those who don’t want to live that way?  According to her husband, Terri said she wouldn’t want to live in a PVS.  People tell their spouses, “if something like that happens to me, pull the plug.”…ie, “I don’t want to live that way.”

Terri’s not in pain, but she is dependent upon the help of others.  (Actually she might be in pain now… because of the lack of water.) 

The only real circumstances I can think of to justify allowing human death would be 1. in the case of a mortal wound that causes excruciating pain and suffering and they’ll die in a day or so from it anyway.  Then fine…if they ask, “Please put me out of my misery.”  2. If a person is truly in a vegetative state where they have no brain activity and require the aid of machines for breathing, heart beating, etc. (not just one, but several machines), then they’re already dead, right?  There’s no reason to keep a corpse going.

Anyway, and that’s all I have to say about that.

Hello Selah,

I would echo many of the same concerns Tom has so elegantly articulated.  The ambiguity of each case makes it hard to draw a clear line of when to pull the plug on someone’s life.   I think we cross a line of cruelty by letting someone starve to death while using subjective evaluation about their quality of life.  I’m growing suspicious of this form of justified evil we call a greater good.

 As the adage goes “change is inevitable”.   What concerns me is the direction such change leads us. Will cases like Terri’s not change our moral perspective in some form or fashion?  Are we taking little steps down the wrong path, is there something pulling on us, eating and wearing on us until we gradually become numb to our moral conscience? 

Selah: Terri Shiavo’s case must make for a good news story because of the starvation/possible suffering edge, but overall I'm sure people make these decisions every day.

The difference is loving people don’t make decisions every day that deprive helpless people of water.  Its crazy, next we’ll just move all the unwanted folks into showers with no water - hey…do I smell gas.

Selah: Leave it to America to throw some suffering person in the limelight so we have something to talk about around the water cooler. Personally, I think this issue is unique to every individual and ultimately between them, their family, and their Creator. Not sure where the media (or the president!) has a place in this. Tom's was a perfect example. Where was the president when the infant's mother needed him? gee.

Many people are eager for these types of stories, the media is happy to oblige .We should look beyond the surface of what the media feeds us, lets look at the consequences to see what’s really going on here.  I’m a strong believer in “we are what we eat”, so lets be careful of what we're spoon fed. Your right about the media, we are fed a lot of crap, sometimes it’s tuff to even take a little sniff.

In conclusion, the following three points stand out.

1. Ethics: The barbaric act of starving someone to death, with not even as much as a sponge to wet her lips.  We wouldn't extend such treatment to animals; in fact, you could be thrown in jail for such cruelty. This is what sets it apart from other cases.  This is not a case of simply pulling the plug and leting her die in a few minutes or even hours, but days and even weeks, it’s brutal.
2. Faith and Family: The family situation is made complicated by Michael’s sin of adultery. He’s inline more with Power of Attorney then that of a loving husband.   One thing is evident after watching the web of legal issues surrounding this case and that is, we should advocate the value of a written “Living Will”.   Michael’s claims that Terri once made a casual reference to her wishes while watching TV, well that just doesn’t cut it.  There’s a good chance she asked for a divorce at one point in their relationship too, most couples do.  But it doesn’t count unless you sign on the dotted line.  They might still be legally married on paper, but in reality it seems to have ended years ago
3. Political and Financial: Who's paying the medical bills? The monetary and political ramifications of this case is endless. The precedence that will be set, paving the way for further cruelty of human life is a hard ripple to swallow.  Unfortunately, a case could be made that Terri’s life has become more about money and politics then about ethics and her life.

Shalom,

Mark

Post Edited (sparknheart) : 3/24/2005 12:19:15 PM (GMT-6)

Post Edited (BBBCanada) : 3/24/2005 1:25:47 PM (GMT-6)