Euthanasia: the right to die, the right to live..

[Menydh]

... or the right not to be left to die by starvation like an animal.


Please, read through the 4 first posts before casting your vote. Thank you.


I came through the case of Terri Schiavo just this morning, and the news I've read so far I'm finding them frightening.

Terri Schiavo, after a brain damage that left her in a vegetative state, has been connected to a feeding tube for years. After a two year court battle it has been ruled that she is disconnected and allowed to die from starvation... or starved to death. The case for keeping her alive has been raised by her parents, whereas her husband has oppose to this.

Main Entry: eu·tha·na·sia
Pronunciation: "yü-th&-'nA-zh(E-)&
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek, easy death, from euthanatos, from eu- + thanatos death -- more at THANATOS
: the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy

Note: despite the above definition, by its [Greek] etymology, euthanasia is defined as the good (or better) death.


The choices on this poll are explained here:

No euthanasia (absolute): keeping alive a person using whatever methods available, natural and artificial, for as long as possible.

No euthanasia (temporal): keeping alive a person during a certain period of time in the hope that the person might recover (roughly indicate the period of time and other details, please).

Active euthanasia: the administration of drugs to kill a patient in a vegetative state.

Passive euthanasia: permitting the death of a terminal patient by non administering artificial help.


Now, for the case of Terri Schiavo, who has been now disconnected from the feeding tube for the sixth consecutive day, and who the doctors have given an uncertain date between one week and two weeks to day by starvation (speculating on whether she will suffer or not, and uncertain about this too), two other choices should be considered:

Compasive active euthanasia: basically a choice for those who oppose active euthanasia and would be in favour of passive euthanasia, but who would agree on administering a method of active euthanasia for cases where passive euthanasia will cause a painful and prolongued death. Or where there is no 100% scientific certainty that the patient will not suffer, such as the case of Terri Schiavo.

Savage euthanasia: the fate to which Terri Schiavo has been sentenced to. A slow and painful death after being disconnected from all artificial help.


For all of the above choices, please state whether your choice would apply to every case, regardless gravity, and your reasons.

[Menydh]

Here are some links to news on Terri Schiavo's case:

No choice for Terri Schiavo

Hopes Dashed Again

What You Need to Know About Living Wills

Supreme Court Turns Down Schiavo Plea

Schiavo case puts spotlight on living wills

Supreme court won\'t hear Schiavo case

Schiavo case sparks interest in health care directives

St. Paul Franciscans aid Schiavo\'s parents

A living will can put you in charge of your own life

While I Was Sleeping ***fulll article below***

Questions and answers

Who Is Paying the Bill for Schiavo\'s Care? ***full article below***

[Menydh]

While I Was Sleeping

Why my husband refused to end my life during my two-month coma.

by Lindsey O'Connor | originally posted 01/30/2004

My blood ran cold as I watched the video of Terri Schiavo. I shivered at the news that this brain-injured woman was comatose or in a persistent vegetative state while the video seemed to show otherwise. The chill was more than just my journalistic intrigue. People everywhere were debating the right to "die with dignity" and wondering what it would be like to be in Schiavo's place, but I didn't exactly have to imagine.

One year before the day Schiavo's feeding tube was pulled, I awoke briefly from a 47-day coma, only to go back under for several more weeks. Severe childbirth complications resulted in two emergency surgeries and the transfusion of 20 units of blood and blood products—about twice the blood volume of my body. I remained comatose and on life support in the ICU for two months.

My family expected my death repeatedly during my coma. I developed acute respiratory distress syndrome, which is often fatal, and it critically impaired my lungs. I had pneumonia, a toxic blood infection, blood clots, kidney failure, and life threateningly low blood pressure and oxygenation. My family was told I had anoxia—brain damage from oxygen deprivation. I lay hooked up to a ventilator and a feeding tube, receiving maximum doses of drugs to keep me alive. Heroic measures and life-and-death decisions were daily realities for my family.

My husband slept and ate little. Tim juggled his job with being constantly available to me, to doctors' consultations, and to our family. He described our surreal journey in e-mail updates that were forwarded by many people around the world. He also undertook "Caroline therapy": laying our mother-deprived newborn on my chest while I slept, so she would sleep too.

Tim learned to be an effective advocate for a critically ill patient by researching my diagnosis thoroughly and making the doctors make him understand. And on days when his faith was in shock and he was too numb to pray, the prayers of others and a Holy Spirit–inspired mind propelled him beyond his capacity. Yet the possibility of a brain-damaged wife, or the thought that he was about to be a single father of five, including our newborn baby, always hovered.

Our children took on responsibilities uncommon for their ages. Three birthdays and our 15-year-old Claire's high-school homecoming came and went while I slept. The children discovered that profound sadness can coexist with moments of normalcy and surprising pockets of happiness. But in the dark, a brave front gave way to deep fears as 10-year-old Allison finally admitted to her father, "I'm so afraid of not having a mommy."

We experienced the body of Christ in action as our local church and others completely ran our home and came in the middle of the night when I'd take a dive. My fellow members of the Advanced Writers and Speakers Association held a day of prayer and fasting, unaware that their prayers ascended on my worst day.

Three of my close friends took weeklong turns in our home caring for the baby and children. Our eldest daughter, Jacquelyn, decided to leave her freshman year in college to become the baby's primary caregiver.

She also experienced a faith crisis. One night, in her car in the hospital parking lot, she pictured her life two ways—with God and without. Was her faith in God just her parents' teaching to invoke good moral choices, or was it real, hers, and worth anything at all? She pondered that age-old question: How could God let something so terrible happen? She decided that as difficult as this was to get through with God, going it alone terrified her. Her faith became her own that night.

Our story is like a movie shown on two screens: my loved ones' experience on one, my experience on another. Their story happened to me but I missed it, missed two months of my life and the greatest tragedy my family's been through. My story shows me giving a happy birth, then having trouble, then going to sleep before the surgeries. I awaken from a drug-induced coma, thinking it was the next morning, and hear my husband say, "You've been here for 47 days." Later that day, I slip back into the coma for several more weeks, then awake to the invasion of the body snatchers, unable to breathe or move on my own, my heart severed from my newborn.

When Schiavo's story broke, I waded through the murky ground of what many felt but few voiced. Many prolife Christians agreed that what was being done to Schiavo was terribly wrong, but still deep questions swirled: Who would want to be in her position? Is there a morally acceptable line for relinquishing life support? Could sanctity and dignity of life walk hand in hand?

The In-Between
When Dr. James Dobson was a guest on Sean Hannity's national talk-radio show discussing Schiavo, he recounted my story. Add me to the list of poster adults for not pulling the plug. Yet from my new perspective, the sanctity of life versus the dignity of life still seems complex.

Gradually I've begun to remember bits of my comatose state: The swimming-through-mud feeling of trying to surface to awareness. The frightening dreams. The intense and very real spiritual warfare, a battle as unto death. The fog of being strapped in a chair with daytime television on to "stimulate" me, vaguely registering that people were in my room, but unable to comprehend that, let alone communicate. It was like watching someone through opaque glass underwater, visible but obscure and unreachable. And the weeks of living in the shadowland between my coma and full awareness, with times of frustration beyond belief.

I remember Tim holding one of my hands, a neurologist the other, and telling me to squeeze their hands. Unable to do so or to speak, I felt my brain screaming, "Why can't I do this? Maybe I'm dying." Later, my inability to use the call button left me banging a spoon on the bedside table for an hour and a half. No one came. They thought it was the repetitive motor response of a brain-damaged woman.

These memories seeded a need for clarity in answers and—just as important—a passion to ask the right questions in life-and-death issues. William Temple, who was Archbishop of Canterbury in the 1940s, wrote that the "church must announce Christian principles and point out where the existing social order is in conflict with them."

What then are the Christian principles at the heart of this argument? Two come to mind: "Thou shalt not murder" is a protective boundary whose removal would incite societal moral free-fall. And life is sacred and reflects God's image, with innate value regardless of its quality or productivity.

But if God values us, whole or brain-damaged, and there's value in being a loving caregiver to an incapacitated person, what about the seeming purposelessness of that patient's existence? A second biblically derived principle sheds light here: if our chief end is to glorify God, then we can find purpose and meaning in a life that society deems a mere existence. God can be glorified even through our suffering.

But how do we apply this truth in the modern hospital, especially when science can seem to be extending suffering while extending life? When is it morally right for a Christian to remove or refuse medical treatment? How do we determine when or if we can remove life support from our loved ones? When is it okay to issue a Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) order? Can we request that we not be kept alive artificially without violating the Sixth Commandment?

My family lived these agonizing questions. Two weeks after the initial dance on the edge came a death vigil. As I lay dying, the respirator whirred, pumping air into my lifeless-looking body and then sucking it out. My chest rose and fell to the machine's rhythm, yet my lungs failed to properly oxygenate my blood. Paralytic drugs immobilized me. Vasopressor drugs fought to keep my blood pressure up. My limbs were blue and as cold as refrigerated meat. It did not look like I had any upper-level brain function. I was expected to die before morning.

I later learned that 40 or more friends and relatives stood vigil in the waiting room. My friend Sue brought our son in to join his siblings for the grim task of saying goodbye. She said to my pastor, Brent, "So, this is it?" He nodded.

Sharon marveled at our Christian paradox through grief: "She may see the face of Jesus today."

Susan, one of my best friends, looked at my gray, barely recognizable body and said, "Death is ugly, isn't it?"

Kathy, my other best friend, said goodbye and left distraught with my baby.

My dad touched my feet and said, "I taught these feet how to walk." He agreed with Tim as he made end-of-life decisions.

Tim said, "Even though we have hope, there is still pain. The difference with a Christian worldview is that the outcome is established. Even if we leave things unsaid, we'll have an opportunity to talk again."

Through the long night, Tim hammered out the heart-rending ethics and options. He cited the radical drugs I was receiving, which essentially cut off blood flow to my extremities so the body could concentrate circulation and pressure to the vital organs.

"Does this constitute heroic measures?" he asked.

"Yes," answered the doctor.

"So would it be ethically acceptable and appropriate to limit this medicine?"

"It would be acceptable," she said.

Tim anguished about the ghoulish side effects and the possible dire outcome. Torn by his pain in my suffering, he issued a DNR order under certain circumstances. Then he rescinded it. Then he issued it again. Then, again, he rescinded it. Removing the respirator and feeding tube was never an option. What he questioned continuing was the heroic measure of a drug so strong that doctors privately call it "leave 'em dead."

"She's suffering and she's not there," Tim said.

"But we don't know that," Susan said.

"Tim, there's a high likelihood she's going to die tonight, so keep your fingerprints off of it," counseled Brent.

Mama Goes North
Thankfully, God's leading through the counsel of community left every lifesaving measure in place, including the "leave 'em dead" drug. Tim's was a model decision-making process: He researched my situation; he consulted with doctors; he considered the futility or burden over benefit of treatment; he remembered my wishes; he questioned his own motives. Most important, he prayed constantly and sought godly counsel.

I don't remember waking up the second time. Weeks after I woke up I was still on a vent, unable to speak. I went into the hospital on August 30, 2002, and came home just before Christmas, still unable to walk or breathe on my own. But in February 2003, while still incapable of driving and doing most things, I did rewrites on a book I had turned in the week before the birth (ironically titled If Mama Goes South, We\'re All Going with Her). Discovering I could still think and write was another miracle, since in the hospital I couldn't read (coma can affect vision) or concentrate. I didn't know if I'd ever be able to resume my work.

I sometimes hear comments that Lazarus could have heard. One of my Christian doctors said, "There's no medical reason you are alive. You are a miracle at the hand of God." Tim often reminds me, "Life is fragile, so leave nothing unsaid." In spite of daily physical effects of the trauma, I've learned that radical obedience (in my case, having a baby at 40) is worth any cost, that prayer is inconceivably important, that miracles still happen, and that I have a faith worth dying for.

Would I want to live without cognitive awareness? Well, no. Wanting to avoid suffering is human. Even Christ asked if his suffering could be avoided. I believe there are times when it is acceptable and ethical to remove medical treatment from our loved ones. But in all cases, we should weigh our desire to be released from suffering against a greater desire to glorify God. If I had predetermined no life support (or only short-duration support), as some have in advance directives, I'd be dead. I'd also perhaps have missed the greatest opportunity of my life to bring God glory, because he can use us for his purposes in any bodily state—even while we're sleeping.



[source]

[Menydh]

Another Tough Issue Schiavo Case
Brings Forth: Who Pays for Care?

By SARAH LUECK
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

The Wall Street Journal
March 24, 2005

The emotional debate over Terri Schiavo's medical treatment has eclipsed a much smaller but related public-policy issue related to her case: Who pays the bills for those unable to care -- or pay -- for themselves.

It is an issue that divides Ms. Schiavo's husband, who wants her to be permitted to die, and her parents, who want her kept alive. It is also a flashpoint between those who want to reduce the government's health-care spending, particularly in Medicaid, and those who defend it.

For at least two years, the hospice caring for Ms. Schiavo has covered most costs, said Deborah Bushnell, an attorney who represents Ms. Schiavo's husband, Michael. Medicaid, the federal-state program for the poor and disabled, covers Ms. Schiavo's prescription medications.

Ms. Schiavo, who has severe brain damage, also is eligible for Medicare. The federal program provides health coverage to people who are disabled for more than two years. But The Hospice of the Florida Suncoast, the Largo, Fla.-based parent corporation of the facility where Ms. Schiavo resides, made an "internal decision" not to bill the government programs for her care, Ms. Bushnell said


In part, the hospice was responding to Ms. Schiavo's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, who objected to their daughter being on government assistance, Ms. Bushnell said. The parents said a medical-malpractice settlement of more than $1 million that Mr. Schiavo received should be used for her medical care, not spent on legal fees in the court battle over whether Ms. Schiavo should be kept alive.

An attorney for the Schindlers didn't return a request to comment. Louise Cleary, a spokeswoman for the hospice, said she couldn't comment on a specific patient, citing privacy rules. She said the hospice, a nonprofit corporation with several facilities, provided $9.5 million worth of free care to 1,800 patients in the fiscal year ended Sept. 30.

Under Medicaid, Ms. Schiavo receives painkillers for cramps and medications associated with feeding tubes, Ms. Bushnell said. The monthly cost "probably doesn't exceed a couple hundred dollars," she said. Ms. Schiavo is in Florida Medicaid's "medically needy" program, Ms. Bushnell said. The program, which covers about 35,000 people in the state, is for people with high health costs who don't meet the usual Medicaid income requirements.

Ms. Schiavo's attorneys set up what is called a special-needs trust to help her qualify for Medicaid. The trusts, permitted under federal law, allow disabled people under age 65 to qualify for Medicaid even if their assets exceed the normal limits. After death of the patient, the state can recoup Medicaid costs from the trust.

In recent years, as Florida has faced budget problems, the medically needy program has been targeted for cutbacks at various times by lawmakers and Gov. Jeb Bush. In March, Gov. Bush proposed restoring funding to the program. Both Gov. Bush and his brother President Bush have said Medicaid rules allowing people to transfer or hide assets ought to be more restrictive, though they haven't commented publicly on the type of trust Ms. Schiavo has.

If the Schindlers prevail in the court appeal and Ms. Schiavo's feeding tube is replaced, she could stay alive for many years. The hospice, when deciding to pay most of Ms. Schiavo's bills, "thought it was going to be short term," Ms. Bushnell said. If Ms. Schiavo's feeding tube is hooked up again, donated care is unlikely, she said. "She's going to be on the government dole," Ms. Bushnell said.

Write to Sarah Lueck at sarah.lueck@wsj.com



[source]

[Gil]

I voted the first choice (no euthanasia - absolute) but i'm speaking of cases whre the patient has no capability of giving his own opinion (coma, dementia, vegetative state, etc....).
In cases when the patient is able to ask that euthanasia be performed on him then i'm all for it.

[etoile noir]

i've already voted on a similar poll, related to Ms. Schiavo, and i voted that she should be allowed to die.

my reasoning was that since she's been in a vegetative state since she was 26 [she's now 40], i didnt feel there was much hope for her.

however someone then replied and said that the husband re-married - and supplied proof that he is in fact married to another woman. so in this case, why should the "husband" even be allowed to ask for her to die? if he has re-married, then he is no longer kin, and her blood relatives should be the ones to decide for her.

it is the "husband" who is fighting to let her die, and her blood relatives who are asking the judge to overturn his decision. and the politicians have turned this delicate, family issue into a circus. quite frankly this case stinks!

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by etoile noir

i've already voted on a similar poll, related to Ms. Schiavo, and i voted that she should be allowed to die.

my reasoning was that since she's been in a vegetative state since she was 26 [she's now 40], i didnt feel there was much hope for her.

Fine. But, should she be allowed to die in agony (arguably passive euthanasia), or should they supply some medicine to help her die (active euthanasia on grounds of compassion)?

however someone then replied and said that the husband re-married - and supplied proof that he is in fact married to another woman. so in this case, why should the "husband" even be allowed to ask for her to die? if he has re-married, then he is no longer kin, and her blood relatives should be the ones to decide for her.

it is the "husband" who is fighting to let her die, and her blood relatives who are asking the judge to overturn his decision. and the politicians have turned this delicate, family issue into a circus. quite frankly this case stinks!

Indeed. And not just. The last court of appeal to turn down her parent's demand, didn't give any reasons why they had desestimated the appeal.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Manji

I voted the first choice (no euthanasia - absolute) but i'm speaking of cases whre the patient has no capability of giving his own opinion (coma, dementia, vegetative state, etc....).
In cases when the patient is able to ask that euthanasia be performed on him then i'm all for it.

But in such cases, would you support only passive euthanasia or would you go as far as supporting active euthanasia?

[Milesian]

I'm against euthansia as a rule.
I think life is being squeezed enough from both ends (abortion at the start and euthansia at the end). Personally if I was in a bad state I would want them to give it 110% to keep me alive before giving up on me.

As for painful, terminal illnesses - advances in pain control are actually really good now. Many cancer sufferers now for example live out the remainder of their lives comfortably and with dignity in hospices where their needs can be taken care of 24 hours a day, surrounded by family and loved-ones. Some have been people I know, and they and their families have been very grateful and appreciative of the staff and the care they've been given.
I'm of the opinion that this is preferable as opposed to a quick lethal injection and then getting the poor sod's corpse out of the bed to make way for the next patient.

However, I did change my mind at the last minute from absolute to temporal.
The reason is that death is a natural event in itself, and although I'm not particularly looking forward to dying, I won't grow willful and refuse to give up the ghost when my appointed hour comes.

However, I cannot give a time where I would want them to stop trying to keep me alive. I'm not sure it is possible to draw the line. Perhaps it depends more on the individual case. I believe in giving a person every chance possible of staying alive while frowning on this culture of death with it's cavalier attitude to life and death. At the sametime though, I will not refuse to meet my maker when my time is at hand.....nor to pay back the debt of my many, many sins

[etoile noir]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Fine. But, should she be allowed to die in agony (arguably passive euthanasia), or should they supply some medicine to help her die (active euthanasia on grounds of compassion)?

in this particular case, active euthanasia to minimise this poor woman's suffering. But, only if her relatives decide for her - and that does not include the "husband". however if what i heard on the news just now is correct, it already seems too late since Ms. Schiavo has reached the end of her tether.

[trinacria]

I vote for compasive active euthanasia. I don't think Mrs. Schiavo has a fighting chance, really. It really breaks my heart to see her suffer this way (starving) and I don't think it's right at all. If they want her to die (that sounds terrible), they should administer some drugs to get it over with as soon as possible. Also, you must take into account her way of life. It's unclear if she's suffering (even when she was ON life support) or not. It's really no way to live.

I also think her husband should have no say if you put him against her PARENTS.

[Agrippa]

I'm definitely for active Euthanasia, people should have the right to chose in desperate situations.

In cases were the patient isnt able to speak up himself, it depends on the outlook and how probable a better health situation is + what this person said before his/her situation worsened.

Otherwise its a question of the material situation and perspective as well, if f.e. a state has starving children and 90 year old patients without consciousness arent able to live without machines, this is for me a rather a cynical situation.

In cases like those above, it depends totally on the chances for recovery since if those parts of her brain which make her a human being and give her a human personality are dead and the damage is irreparable, she's dead herself no matter if her heart is still beating.

Furthermore if people moan about her starvation, they shouldnt be hypocritical and allow active Euthanasia to give her a fast and human end.

I for myself would definitely not like to vegetate in such a condition and I'm saying that after being in a critical health situation two times of my life.

I dont want to die, I like to live, but not under all circumstances and not for "just living" and for sure not because of any sort of superstition.
If you ever saw such people, practically dead but suffering horrible, without any reason and chance to get up again, which makes absolutely no sense you can't be against Euthanasia in my opinion. If they want to die, they should be able to decide it.