As is often the case, "JWB <jwb3333__takeoutallthis__@excite.com>"
gets right to the heart of the question in few words. (I hope that
positive beginning of this article isn't undone by the fact that I
disagree with him. 8-)

Here are three separate remarks form him which I believe get to the
points at issue:
But in this case, the wishes of the person are not known. In that instance, someone (like parents) have the right to say "hey, she should live"
[H]ow about your child's spouse making that decision for your child (when you believe, like this girl's parents do, that there *is* some hope)
Somehow, I doubt you parents would think this if actually faced with some scumbag wanting to pull the plug on *your* child, when you fully believe there is hope.


I come to this with several points of perspective that may be of
interest to those reading, one of which is directly on the question of
families in hospitals with dead relatives.

My late grandmother was an intensive care nurse at the time when EKG
machines were becoming widespread. These early machines were a real
advance, though of course nothing like the equipment available now. As
I remember her describing it, the screen that showed your heartbeat was
several inches around, and an actual heartbeat made a spike about 2.5
inches high. But if you just turned the machine on, and left the
electrodes laying in an empty bed, it wouldn't give a flat line. There
would be little ripples and bumps in the display. Maybe it was people
turning on the power in another part of the building, or walking past
the flourescent lights in the same room, or some other such thing.
Whatever the cause, an EKG machine that was hooked up to nothing would
have little spikes and ripples on it. These artifacts were nothing like
an actual cardiac rhythm, and the staff got used to seeing them when the
machines were being cleaned and tested and so on.

They *also* got used to them when the machine was hooked up to a dead
person. If you were on the EKG, and you died, the same little wavers
would show up on the display. And they had a rule, after some
experience, that if someone died, *before* you let the family members
into the room, you have to turn off the machines. Otherwise, someone
would come running out into the hall, crying in desperation for a
doctor: "The line moved! He's still alive!" It didn't matter if the
patient hadn't had a pulse for half an hour, had lost a gallon of blood,
and was in rigor mortis. The nurses would try to explain that those
little spikes didn't mean anything, to no avail. So the rule: if the
patient is certified as dead, you turn off the machines.

When a loved one dies, the family members irrationally cling to any
possible hint of life. A dead, cold body right in front of them is
not evidence enough to make them ignore random static on a screen.

*

The second is something I mentioned earlier, about Koko the gorilla.
"Denise noe <denisenoe@aol.com>" had this in her signature:
Koko the Signing Gorilla says: "Fine animal gorilla."

and I replied that I see no reason to believe that Koko says anything.
Even viewed sympathetically, the supposed "conversations" she has are
more "seeing what you want to see" than language use:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030328.html

I went to far as to compare it to the disaster over "facilitated
communication", when a bunch of people ignored all evidence and facts
and their own training. Instead, they saw what they wanted to see:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/programs/info/1202.html

The full transcript of the program is here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/programs/transcripts/1202.html

I'm not a medical expert, and don't pretend to play one here. I did go
look at some of the movies on the "terrisfight" website. But so far as
I can tell, people looking at those movies can see what they want. Is
Mrs Schiavo looking at a shiny balloon proof she's conscious? Or is it
just an orienting reflex? I don't pretend to know. If she was playing
chess, or something, that would obviously settle it. But it disturbs me
a lot that the clips on the website are no *better* than Koko's supposed
conversations, or the facilitated communication examples. Many people
taken in by FC were highly-trained experts, many with earned graduate
degrees in the field, and familiar with principles of double-blind
studies and scientific method. And still, they saw what they wanted to
see. No family member, and noone strongly committed to anti-euthanasia,
can even hope to be more objective than the experts who were so totally
self-deceived about FC. But do you hear them speaking with the
awareness that their own rationality may be in question? No: they admit
no doubt at all.

*

For a while, I worked in a hospital, helping run and program positron
emission tomography machines. (No matter what you saw on Star Trek,
antimatter isn't that dangerous as long as you only have a tiny little
bit of it.)

Modern hospitals go through money like you wouldn't believe, and I do
not mean that they waste it. Every needle is used once and discarded.
Same with rubber gloves. Biological waste has to be carefully monitored
and destroyed. Nuclear waste has to be carefully monitored, tracked,
stored, and handled. Combination waste (blood from a patient injected
with a radioisotope) can't be entered into either waste stream; the
biological material has to be neutralized first. The PET scanner I was
responsible for used immense amounts of electricity, and required a
full-time employee (an engineer at a high pay grade) to ensure it was
adjusted and operating properly.

The thought that somebody would expend such huge amounts of money on me,
for over 10 years, when I'm in a persistent vegetative state, makes me
sick. Spend that money on some kid who doesn't have health insurance,
someone who is actually alive and aware and functional. Yes, my life
has value -- but it doesn't have *infinite* value even when I'm healthy
and aware. It's value against other lives, when there's good reason to
believe that I'm brain dead, is much much lower.

*

And yes, I suspect that if it were my child, I would probably no more
rational on this point than anyone else. I would be flipping out, no
question about it.

Imperfect though they may be, we have courts to decide these things when
family members can't agree. So far as I know, every court which has
heard this case has concluded that (a) Terri Schiavo is dead in all but
body, and (b) the feeding tube should be removed. This was appealed up
to the Florida Supreme Court, which upheld the original decision. In
the end, the Florida legislature passed a special law giving the
governor special powers to override the court's decision.

Quoting from a court decision I found on the family website:

From our review of the videotapes of Mrs. Schiavo, despite the
irrefutable evidence that her cerebral cortex has sustained the
most severe of irreparable injuries, we understand why a parent
who had raised and nurtured a child from conception would hold
out hope that some level of cognitive function remained. If
Mrs. Schiavo were our own daughter, we could not but hold to
such a faith.

[...] It is the trial judge's duty not to make the decision
that the judge would make for himself or herself or for a loved
one. Instead, the trial judge must make a decision that the
clear and convincing evidence shows the ward would have made for
herself. It is a thankless task, and one to be undertaken with
care, objectivity, and a cautious legal standard designed to
promote the value of life.

whereupon it was ordered that the feeding tube should be removed.


This is not "He want to turn it off, and we didn't get a say". They
went to court, they made their case, and they lost. They said "Hey,
she should live", and the response was "She's already dead."

They appealed, and they appealed again. So far as I can make out, at
every point in the progression, the courts came back to the same
decision: she is already dead, and it serves nothing to keep her body
alive.

Yes, it's horrible. It would be great if the court could order someone
to heal her and make everything good again. But they can't.

Maybe it's the wrong decision. But the wrong decision gets made all the
time in courts, and people get the death penalty for crimes they did not
commit. But we don't have any perfect way to make these decisions, so
it's not clear what to do instead. Perhaps courts aren't the right way
to solve these problems, but no sensible alternative has been suggested
to me.


Is Terri Schiavo still in there? Or is she long since dead in every
way that matters?

I don't know. I don't even know how to find out.

But I do know that we have to make SOME decision, and we need some
guidelines for making it. So far as I can tell, those guidelines have
been followed in this case, and the decision has been to stop the
feedings. Nobody that I know of has said that this is a good thing.


Darren Provine ! kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy
"Of all men's miseries the bitterest is this, to know so much and to
have control over nothing." -- Herodotus

"Dr Nancy's Sweetie" <kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu> wrote in message
news:cviqip$lru$1@pcls4.std.com... As is often the case, "JWB <jwb3333__takeoutallthis__@excite.com>" gets right to the heart of the question in few words. (I hope that positive beginning of this article isn't undone by the fact that I disagree with him. 8-)

heh heh.
Here are three separate remarks form him which I believe get to the points at issue: But in this case, the wishes of the person are not known. In that instance, someone (like parents) have the right to say "hey, she should live" [H]ow about your child's spouse making that decision for your child (when you believe, like this girl's parents do, that there *is* some hope) Somehow, I doubt you parents would think this if actually faced with some scumbag wanting to pull the plug on *your* child, when you fully believe there is hope. I come to this with several points of perspective that may be of interest to those reading, one of which is directly on the question of families in hospitals with dead relatives. My late grandmother was an intensive care nurse at the time when EKG machines were becoming widespread. These early machines were a real advance, though of course nothing like the equipment available now. As I remember her describing it, the screen that showed your heartbeat was several inches around, and an actual heartbeat made a spike about 2.5 inches high. But if you just turned the machine on, and left the electrodes laying in an empty bed, it wouldn't give a flat line. There would be little ripples and bumps in the display. Maybe it was people turning on the power in another part of the building, or walking past the flourescent lights in the same room, or some other such thing. Whatever the cause, an EKG machine that was hooked up to nothing would have little spikes and ripples on it. These artifacts were nothing like an actual cardiac rhythm, and the staff got used to seeing them when the machines were being cleaned and tested and so on. They *also* got used to them when the machine was hooked up to a dead person. If you were on the EKG, and you died, the same little wavers would show up on the display. And they had a rule, after some experience, that if someone died, *before* you let the family members into the room, you have to turn off the machines. Otherwise, someone would come running out into the hall, crying in desperation for a doctor: "The line moved! He's still alive!" It didn't matter if the patient hadn't had a pulse for half an hour, had lost a gallon of blood, and was in rigor mortis. The nurses would try to explain that those little spikes didn't mean anything, to no avail. So the rule: if the patient is certified as dead, you turn off the machines. When a loved one dies, the family members irrationally cling to any possible hint of life. A dead, cold body right in front of them is not evidence enough to make them ignore random static on a screen.

Yea, and the more I think about this, the more I see this as a major factor.
If I'm anything, I try to be rational.

"Dr Nancy's Sweetie" <kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu> wrote in message
news:cviqip$lru$1@pcls4.std.com... As is often the case, "JWB <jwb3333__takeoutallthis__@excite.com>" gets right to the heart of the question in few words. (I hope that positive beginning of this article isn't undone by the fact that I disagree with him. 8-)

heh heh.
Here are three separate remarks form him which I believe get to the points at issue: But in this case, the wishes of the person are not known. In that instance, someone (like parents) have the right to say "hey, she should live" [H]ow about your child's spouse making that decision for your child (when you believe, like this girl's parents do, that there *is* some hope) Somehow, I doubt you parents would think this if actually faced with some scumbag wanting to pull the plug on *your* child, when you fully believe there is hope. I come to this with several points of perspective that may be of interest to those reading, one of which is directly on the question of families in hospitals with dead relatives. My late grandmother was an intensive care nurse at the time when EKG machines were becoming widespread. These early machines were a real advance, though of course nothing like the equipment available now. As I remember her describing it, the screen that showed your heartbeat was several inches around, and an actual heartbeat made a spike about 2.5 inches high. But if you just turned the machine on, and left the electrodes laying in an empty bed, it wouldn't give a flat line. There would be little ripples and bumps in the display. Maybe it was people turning on the power in another part of the building, or walking past the flourescent lights in the same room, or some other such thing. Whatever the cause, an EKG machine that was hooked up to nothing would have little spikes and ripples on it. These artifacts were nothing like an actual cardiac rhythm, and the staff got used to seeing them when the machines were being cleaned and tested and so on. They *also* got used to them when the machine was hooked up to a dead person. If you were on the EKG, and you died, the same little wavers would show up on the display. And they had a rule, after some experience, that if someone died, *before* you let the family members into the room, you have to turn off the machines. Otherwise, someone would come running out into the hall, crying in desperation for a doctor: "The line moved! He's still alive!" It didn't matter if the patient hadn't had a pulse for half an hour, had lost a gallon of blood, and was in rigor mortis. The nurses would try to explain that those little spikes didn't mean anything, to no avail. So the rule: if the patient is certified as dead, you turn off the machines. When a loved one dies, the family members irrationally cling to any possible hint of life. A dead, cold body right in front of them is not evidence enough to make them ignore random static on a screen.

Yea, and the more I think about this, the more I see this as a major factor.
If I'm anything, I try to be rational.

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 20:54:49 +0000 (UTC), Dr Nancy's Sweetie
<kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu> wrote:

<Snip>
This is not "He want to turn it off, and we didn't get a say". They went to court, they made their case, and they lost. They said "Hey, she should live", and the response was "She's already dead." They appealed, and they appealed again. So far as I can make out, at every point in the progression, the courts came back to the same decision: she is already dead, and it serves nothing to keep her body alive. Yes, it's horrible. It would be great if the court could order someone to heal her and make everything good again. But they can't. Maybe it's the wrong decision. But the wrong decision gets made all the time in courts, and people get the death penalty for crimes they did not commit. But we don't have any perfect way to make these decisions, so it's not clear what to do instead. Perhaps courts aren't the right way to solve these problems, but no sensible alternative has been suggested to me.

Doctors are not God. Judges are not God. And in the case of the Florida
Legislator and the Governor, a law was passed to keep her alive. It was
passed in days, and that should count as a miracle in itself.

The people have spoken. Why are lawsuits still going on?

I can ask you the same thing. If the people have spoken (and that is how
we decide laws in this country) why is Terri's "husband" still fighting?

He should just give it up. The half a mil he spent on lawyers trying to
execute his wife could have been better spent other ways (like keeping her
alive and giving her her required therapy).

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 20:54:49 +0000 (UTC), Dr Nancy's Sweetie
<kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu> wrote:

<Snip>
This is not "He want to turn it off, and we didn't get a say". They went to court, they made their case, and they lost. They said "Hey, she should live", and the response was "She's already dead." They appealed, and they appealed again. So far as I can make out, at every point in the progression, the courts came back to the same decision: she is already dead, and it serves nothing to keep her body alive. Yes, it's horrible. It would be great if the court could order someone to heal her and make everything good again. But they can't. Maybe it's the wrong decision. But the wrong decision gets made all the time in courts, and people get the death penalty for crimes they did not commit. But we don't have any perfect way to make these decisions, so it's not clear what to do instead. Perhaps courts aren't the right way to solve these problems, but no sensible alternative has been suggested to me.

Doctors are not God. Judges are not God. And in the case of the Florida
Legislator and the Governor, a law was passed to keep her alive. It was
passed in days, and that should count as a miracle in itself.

The people have spoken. Why are lawsuits still going on?

I can ask you the same thing. If the people have spoken (and that is how
we decide laws in this country) why is Terri's "husband" still fighting?

He should just give it up. The half a mil he spent on lawyers trying to
execute his wife could have been better spent other ways (like keeping her
alive and giving her her required therapy).

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

"Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd1t0sn.aqk.tony@home.cigardiary.com... On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 20:54:49 +0000 (UTC), Dr Nancy's Sweetie <kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu> wrote: <Snip> This is not "He want to turn it off, and we didn't get a say". They went to court, they made their case, and they lost. They said "Hey, she should live", and the response was "She's already dead." They appealed, and they appealed again. So far as I can make out, at every point in the progression, the courts came back to the same decision: she is already dead, and it serves nothing to keep her body alive. Yes, it's horrible. It would be great if the court could order someone to heal her and make everything good again. But they can't. Maybe it's the wrong decision. But the wrong decision gets made all the time in courts, and people get the death penalty for crimes they did not commit. But we don't have any perfect way to make these decisions, so it's not clear what to do instead. Perhaps courts aren't the right way to solve these problems, but no sensible alternative has been suggested to me. Doctors are not God. Judges are not God. And in the case of the Florida Legislator and the Governor, a law was passed to keep her alive. It was passed in days, and that should count as a miracle in itself. The people have spoken. Why are lawsuits still going on? I can ask you the same thing. If the people have spoken (and that is how we decide laws in this country) why is Terri's "husband" still fighting? He should just give it up. The half a mil he spent on lawyers trying to execute his wife could have been better spent other ways (like keeping her alive and giving her her required therapy). -Tony


I thought this was an interesting site,
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html
full of info I didn't know (apparently the husband really worked hard to
take care of her, and was noted by medical staff and others for the
excellent care that he gave Terri, and he very aggressively sought out all
kinds of treatment - it took him years to accept that she would not improve,
he even took her for very experimental brain implants to try to get
improvement). It also has links to a lot of the court documents. Page 16
of this one was interesting:
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/WolfsonReport.pdf
in which it said that the Schindler family testified that they wanted to
keep her alive at all costs - if she contracted diabetes and lost limbs to
gangrene, they would amputate them one at a time to keep her alive. If she
develops heart disease, they want her to have open heart surgery. They also
said that "even if Theresa had told them of her intention to have artificial
nutrition withdrawn, they would not do it".

"Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd1t0sn.aqk.tony@home.cigardiary.com... On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 20:54:49 +0000 (UTC), Dr Nancy's Sweetie <kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu> wrote: <Snip> This is not "He want to turn it off, and we didn't get a say". They went to court, they made their case, and they lost. They said "Hey, she should live", and the response was "She's already dead." They appealed, and they appealed again. So far as I can make out, at every point in the progression, the courts came back to the same decision: she is already dead, and it serves nothing to keep her body alive. Yes, it's horrible. It would be great if the court could order someone to heal her and make everything good again. But they can't. Maybe it's the wrong decision. But the wrong decision gets made all the time in courts, and people get the death penalty for crimes they did not commit. But we don't have any perfect way to make these decisions, so it's not clear what to do instead. Perhaps courts aren't the right way to solve these problems, but no sensible alternative has been suggested to me. Doctors are not God. Judges are not God. And in the case of the Florida Legislator and the Governor, a law was passed to keep her alive. It was passed in days, and that should count as a miracle in itself. The people have spoken. Why are lawsuits still going on? I can ask you the same thing. If the people have spoken (and that is how we decide laws in this country) why is Terri's "husband" still fighting? He should just give it up. The half a mil he spent on lawyers trying to execute his wife could have been better spent other ways (like keeping her alive and giving her her required therapy). -Tony


I thought this was an interesting site,
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html
full of info I didn't know (apparently the husband really worked hard to
take care of her, and was noted by medical staff and others for the
excellent care that he gave Terri, and he very aggressively sought out all
kinds of treatment - it took him years to accept that she would not improve,
he even took her for very experimental brain implants to try to get
improvement). It also has links to a lot of the court documents. Page 16
of this one was interesting:
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/WolfsonReport.pdf
in which it said that the Schindler family testified that they wanted to
keep her alive at all costs - if she contracted diabetes and lost limbs to
gangrene, they would amputate them one at a time to keep her alive. If she
develops heart disease, they want her to have open heart surgery. They also
said that "even if Theresa had told them of her intention to have artificial
nutrition withdrawn, they would not do it".

"Joy" <joy@joydoesntlikespam.com> wrote in message
news:xHwTd.3746$ED.2391@fe04.lga... <Snip> I thought this was an interesting site, http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html full of info I didn't know (apparently the husband really worked hard to take care of her, and was noted by medical staff and others for the excellent care that he gave Terri, and he very aggressively sought out all kinds of treatment - it took him years to accept that she would not improve, he even took her for very experimental brain implants to try to get improvement). It also has links to a lot of the court documents. Page 16 of this one was interesting: http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/WolfsonReport.pdf in which it said that the Schindler family testified that they wanted to keep her alive at all costs - if she contracted diabetes and lost limbs to gangrene, they would amputate them one at a time to keep her alive. If she develops heart disease, they want her to have open heart surgery. They also said that "even if Theresa had told them of her intention to have artificial nutrition withdrawn, they would not do it".
Joy,

Thanks for posting the links. It really allows one to get an unbiased
review of the facts.

BTW, the small script at the end of this document discounts her parents view
of "keep her alive at all costs". They now claim that was not their true
intent. The court records would probably state different though.

A Man

"Joy" <joy@joydoesntlikespam.com> wrote in message
news:xHwTd.3746$ED.2391@fe04.lga... <Snip> I thought this was an interesting site, http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html full of info I didn't know (apparently the husband really worked hard to take care of her, and was noted by medical staff and others for the excellent care that he gave Terri, and he very aggressively sought out all kinds of treatment - it took him years to accept that she would not improve, he even took her for very experimental brain implants to try to get improvement). It also has links to a lot of the court documents. Page 16 of this one was interesting: http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/WolfsonReport.pdf in which it said that the Schindler family testified that they wanted to keep her alive at all costs - if she contracted diabetes and lost limbs to gangrene, they would amputate them one at a time to keep her alive. If she develops heart disease, they want her to have open heart surgery. They also said that "even if Theresa had told them of her intention to have artificial nutrition withdrawn, they would not do it".
Joy,

Thanks for posting the links. It really allows one to get an unbiased
review of the facts.

BTW, the small script at the end of this document discounts her parents view
of "keep her alive at all costs". They now claim that was not their true
intent. The court records would probably state different though.

A Man

In an earlier article, I wrote that, in cases such as that of Terri
Schiavo, we have courts in place to examine the available evidence and
make decisions about what to do.

"Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com>" replied: Doctors are not God. Judges are not God. And in the case of the Florida Legislator and the Governor, a law was passed to keep her alive. It was passed in days, and that should count as a miracle in itself.

The Florida legislature and governor are not God, either. One reason
the courts are kept separate from the political process (at least in
intelligent jurisdictions) is precisely because what's right is not
always what's immediately popular.

The people have spoken. Why are lawsuits still going on?

Who says the people get a say? Why should a few random strangers, just
because they hold elective office, have any standing in this at all?

This is about two facts:
1) how much of her brain is still functioning?
and
2) what would she want done if most of her brain was dead?

The medical testimony in court is that most of her brain is gone, and
that there's no way for it to come back. There's some disagreement
about how much is left. Her husband and several of her friends said she
would want the feeding stopped.

Should elected strangers who never met her once have the right to
dispute this claim? Did Jeb Bush know the woman personally? Did anyone
in the Florida Legislature? Have they medical knowledge and training
sufficient to override the findings of fact as decided by the court?

With no reason to believe that either the governor or the legislators
are competent medical practitioners, and no reason to believe that
either knew the woman well enough to override her husband's statement
about what she would want, I have no reason whatever to care at all
what they said.

This is about two facts, both of which were aired at length in court,
and neither of which has been rationally disputed in any way that I see.

If the people have spoken (and that is how we decide laws in this country) why is Terri's "husband" still fighting?

Perhaps he believes, with St Augustine, that an unjust law is no law at
all.

He got her therapy for years. He didn't ask a court to decide about the
feeding tube until eight years after her cardiac arrest. That's
important, so it bears fleshing out: HE did not decide to remove the
feeding tube. He asked a court to examine the evidence and make the
decision.

Many marriages don't last eight years. He spent all that time providing
for her care, and hoping for her recovery, even though she was able to
give nothing in return. Not a word, not a smile, not a nod of her head.
He stuck by her for eight years, in a relationship in which he got
*nothing at all* from her. And even then, he didn't make the decision
to shut off the machines -- he asked a third party to do it, not knowing
in advance what the third party was going to decide.

You have called him names, you've used profanity, you've made assertions
of fact without so much as pretending to actually have looked at any
evidence, and in general done all those things that make people want to
avoid you.

Have you actually read over a detailed timeline? Have you actually read
the transcripts from the case? Do you actually know anything about
neurology? Does not having facts even slow you down for one second when
you've decided to rant and rave and condemn somebody else? Or are you
just so happy to go around condemning people that you don't bother with
facts?

I wasn't kidding before when I said that many people who avoid church do
so because they're afraid they'll run into someone like you. I wonder
how you'll explain that, when the time comes?


Darren Provine ! kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy
"If any of you put a stumbling block before one of these little ones who
believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were
fastened around your neck and you were drowned in the depth of the
sea. Woe to the world because of stumbling blocks! Occasions for
stumbling are bound to come, but woe to the one by whom the stumbling
block comes!" -- Jesus (Matthew 18:6-7)

In an earlier article, I wrote that, in cases such as that of Terri
Schiavo, we have courts in place to examine the available evidence and
make decisions about what to do.

"Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com>" replied: Doctors are not God. Judges are not God. And in the case of the Florida Legislator and the Governor, a law was passed to keep her alive. It was passed in days, and that should count as a miracle in itself.

The Florida legislature and governor are not God, either. One reason
the courts are kept separate from the political process (at least in
intelligent jurisdictions) is precisely because what's right is not
always what's immediately popular.

The people have spoken. Why are lawsuits still going on?

Who says the people get a say? Why should a few random strangers, just
because they hold elective office, have any standing in this at all?

This is about two facts:
1) how much of her brain is still functioning?
and
2) what would she want done if most of her brain was dead?

The medical testimony in court is that most of her brain is gone, and
that there's no way for it to come back. There's some disagreement
about how much is left. Her husband and several of her friends said she
would want the feeding stopped.

Should elected strangers who never met her once have the right to
dispute this claim? Did Jeb Bush know the woman personally? Did anyone
in the Florida Legislature? Have they medical knowledge and training
sufficient to override the findings of fact as decided by the court?

With no reason to believe that either the governor or the legislators
are competent medical practitioners, and no reason to believe that
either knew the woman well enough to override her husband's statement
about what she would want, I have no reason whatever to care at all
what they said.

This is about two facts, both of which were aired at length in court,
and neither of which has been rationally disputed in any way that I see.

If the people have spoken (and that is how we decide laws in this country) why is Terri's "husband" still fighting?

Perhaps he believes, with St Augustine, that an unjust law is no law at
all.

He got her therapy for years. He didn't ask a court to decide about the
feeding tube until eight years after her cardiac arrest. That's
important, so it bears fleshing out: HE did not decide to remove the
feeding tube. He asked a court to examine the evidence and make the
decision.

Many marriages don't last eight years. He spent all that time providing
for her care, and hoping for her recovery, even though she was able to
give nothing in return. Not a word, not a smile, not a nod of her head.
He stuck by her for eight years, in a relationship in which he got
*nothing at all* from her. And even then, he didn't make the decision
to shut off the machines -- he asked a third party to do it, not knowing
in advance what the third party was going to decide.

You have called him names, you've used profanity, you've made assertions
of fact without so much as pretending to actually have looked at any
evidence, and in general done all those things that make people want to
avoid you.

Have you actually read over a detailed timeline? Have you actually read
the transcripts from the case? Do you actually know anything about
neurology? Does not having facts even slow you down for one second when
you've decided to rant and rave and condemn somebody else? Or are you
just so happy to go around condemning people that you don't bother with
facts?

I wasn't kidding before when I said that many people who avoid church do
so because they're afraid they'll run into someone like you. I wonder
how you'll explain that, when the time comes?


Darren Provine ! kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy
"If any of you put a stumbling block before one of these little ones who
believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were
fastened around your neck and you were drowned in the depth of the
sea. Woe to the world because of stumbling blocks! Occasions for
stumbling are bound to come, but woe to the one by whom the stumbling
block comes!" -- Jesus (Matthew 18:6-7)

Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes:

(snip)
But this doesn't alter my opinion on feeding tubes for unconcious people.

What about feeding tubes for the brain dead?
## Pope's Pronouncement on Feeding Tubes Stuns Catholic Hospitals Statement from Barbara Coombs Lee, President of Compassion in Dying Federation: On March 16 the Vatican released an opinion that feeding tubes are not medical therapy and cannot be withheld from a permanently unconscious person.

Quite apart from the value of the pope's medical opinions, what is the
difference between being "permanently unconscious" and being a
"vegetable" in common parlance?

Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes:

(snip)
But this doesn't alter my opinion on feeding tubes for unconcious people.

What about feeding tubes for the brain dead?
## Pope's Pronouncement on Feeding Tubes Stuns Catholic Hospitals Statement from Barbara Coombs Lee, President of Compassion in Dying Federation: On March 16 the Vatican released an opinion that feeding tubes are not medical therapy and cannot be withheld from a permanently unconscious person.

Quite apart from the value of the pope's medical opinions, what is the
difference between being "permanently unconscious" and being a
"vegetable" in common parlance?

Doug Anderson wrote: Tony Miller writes: But this doesn't alter my opinion on feeding tubes for unconcious people. What about feeding tubes for the brain dead?

Y'know, it's interesting. The feeding tube
seems to go directly through the abdominal
wall to the stomach; I suspect that she no
longer can swallow and so they have to be
very careful. Certainly no use of an NG tube
there...

I was surprised to learn (when I was admitted
to a stroke unit due to a TIA) that a fair
number of stroke victims lose the swallowing
reflex so there's an effort to check that all
that is working w/ a new patient as part of
the admission procedure... so they know how
to deal with it.

--
Jack C Lipton | cupasoup at pele dot cx | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/
Leadership is about maximizing gains, Management about minimizing losses.
This explains why managers like to hire accountants and keep them busy. -me
"There _is_ a reason ideology rhymes with idiocy, you know." - me

Doug Anderson wrote: Tony Miller writes: But this doesn't alter my opinion on feeding tubes for unconcious people. What about feeding tubes for the brain dead?

Y'know, it's interesting. The feeding tube
seems to go directly through the abdominal
wall to the stomach; I suspect that she no
longer can swallow and so they have to be
very careful. Certainly no use of an NG tube
there...

I was surprised to learn (when I was admitted
to a stroke unit due to a TIA) that a fair
number of stroke victims lose the swallowing
reflex so there's an effort to check that all
that is working w/ a new patient as part of
the admission procedure... so they know how
to deal with it.

--
Jack C Lipton | cupasoup at pele dot cx | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/
Leadership is about maximizing gains, Management about minimizing losses.
This explains why managers like to hire accountants and keep them busy. -me
"There _is_ a reason ideology rhymes with idiocy, you know." - me

On 25 Feb 2005 17:40:34 -0800, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote: Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes: (snip) But this doesn't alter my opinion on feeding tubes for unconcious people. What about feeding tubes for the brain dead? ## Pope's Pronouncement on Feeding Tubes Stuns Catholic Hospitals Statement from Barbara Coombs Lee, President of Compassion in Dying Federation: On March 16 the Vatican released an opinion that feeding tubes are not medical therapy and cannot be withheld from a permanently unconscious person. Quite apart from the value of the pope's medical opinions, what is the difference between being "permanently unconscious" and being a "vegetable" in common parlance?

Brain dead people generally can't breathe on their own.

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

On 25 Feb 2005 17:40:34 -0800, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote: Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes: (snip) But this doesn't alter my opinion on feeding tubes for unconcious people. What about feeding tubes for the brain dead? ## Pope's Pronouncement on Feeding Tubes Stuns Catholic Hospitals Statement from Barbara Coombs Lee, President of Compassion in Dying Federation: On March 16 the Vatican released an opinion that feeding tubes are not medical therapy and cannot be withheld from a permanently unconscious person. Quite apart from the value of the pope's medical opinions, what is the difference between being "permanently unconscious" and being a "vegetable" in common parlance?

Brain dead people generally can't breathe on their own.

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

"Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd206mu.f85.tony@home.cigardiary.com... On 25 Feb 2005 17:40:34 -0800, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote: Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes: (snip) But this doesn't alter my opinion on feeding tubes for unconcious people. What about feeding tubes for the brain dead?

So what if somebody has legally with the proper witnessess and notarization
filled out a form specifing clearly in black and white that, if they should
every be in an irreversible coma or permanent vegetative state in which
their physician has determined there there would be no recovery, medical
treatment should be withheld or withdrawn - specifically authorizing the
withholding or withdrawal of artificially provided food, water, or other
nourishment or fluids? What would be your opinion on it in that case?

"Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd206mu.f85.tony@home.cigardiary.com... On 25 Feb 2005 17:40:34 -0800, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote: Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes: (snip) But this doesn't alter my opinion on feeding tubes for unconcious people. What about feeding tubes for the brain dead?

So what if somebody has legally with the proper witnessess and notarization
filled out a form specifing clearly in black and white that, if they should
every be in an irreversible coma or permanent vegetative state in which
their physician has determined there there would be no recovery, medical
treatment should be withheld or withdrawn - specifically authorizing the
withholding or withdrawal of artificially provided food, water, or other
nourishment or fluids? What would be your opinion on it in that case?

"Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd206mu.f85.tony@home.cigardiary.com... Brain dead people generally can't breathe on their own.

The "breathing center" of the brain is located in the medulla oblongata. The
medulla oblongata itself can still be regulating inspiration without any
higher brain activity, but this is involuntary breathing and not under
Teri's control.

Jess

"Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd206mu.f85.tony@home.cigardiary.com... Brain dead people generally can't breathe on their own.

The "breathing center" of the brain is located in the medulla oblongata. The
medulla oblongata itself can still be regulating inspiration without any
higher brain activity, but this is involuntary breathing and not under
Teri's control.

Jess

Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes:
On 25 Feb 2005 17:40:34 -0800, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote: Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes: (snip) But this doesn't alter my opinion on feeding tubes for unconcious people. What about feeding tubes for the brain dead? ## Pope's Pronouncement on Feeding Tubes Stuns Catholic Hospitals Statement from Barbara Coombs Lee, President of Compassion in Dying Federation: On March 16 the Vatican released an opinion that feeding tubes are not medical therapy and cannot be withheld from a permanently unconscious person. Quite apart from the value of the pope's medical opinions, what is the difference between being "permanently unconscious" and being a "vegetable" in common parlance? Brain dead people generally can't breathe on their own.

Perhaps. But that wasn't what I asked.

And you brought up "brain dead," not me. I'm not sure it is relevant
here, since I don't know that Schiavo has been declared "brain dead"
(I suspect she hasn't), nor is it clear to me what the definition of
"brain dead" is. So I think you are just muddying the water.


I think the big issue here isn't about Schiavo. The big issue is one
of medical ethics in general. Tony would have us "not play god" (or
maybe what he really means is "not play pope").

I think when someone says that, they are objecting to making medical
decisions that may determine life or death. But that horse is
irretrievably gone. Medicine is complex, and decisions get made every
day that determine life or death. Furthermore, this is unavoidable.
If you attempt to refuse to make the decision, that is a decision too,
and also has a life or death effect. (My ethical decision here would
result in saving many more lives: let Schiavo die, and use the
resources that would have paid for continued care for her to supply IV
fluids to babies dying of diarrhea in the third world. Cheap,
related, and life-saving.)

100 years ago, Schiavo would have died. As a society we've
effectively made the decision to develop and use the technologies that
have kept her breathing and kept her heart beating for 15 years in
spite of the fact that her mind is gone. That is "playing god" too.

Of course life-and-death decisions aren't limited to medicine. We (in
the U.S.) consider it OK to execute people. We consider it OK to
start a war costing tens of thousands of lives for psychological
reasons.

So I find it grossly ironic that some argue against doing the right
thing for Schiavo because men shouldn't be making decisions like this.
(By the way, these aren't the Schindler's arguments. They hold onto
misplaced hope that their daughter is capable of recovery, and that is
_their_ argument. Well, that and libeling their son-in-law.)

Doug

Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes:
On 25 Feb 2005 17:40:34 -0800, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote: Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes: (snip) But this doesn't alter my opinion on feeding tubes for unconcious people. What about feeding tubes for the brain dead? ## Pope's Pronouncement on Feeding Tubes Stuns Catholic Hospitals Statement from Barbara Coombs Lee, President of Compassion in Dying Federation: On March 16 the Vatican released an opinion that feeding tubes are not medical therapy and cannot be withheld from a permanently unconscious person. Quite apart from the value of the pope's medical opinions, what is the difference between being "permanently unconscious" and being a "vegetable" in common parlance? Brain dead people generally can't breathe on their own.

Perhaps. But that wasn't what I asked.

And you brought up "brain dead," not me. I'm not sure it is relevant
here, since I don't know that Schiavo has been declared "brain dead"
(I suspect she hasn't), nor is it clear to me what the definition of
"brain dead" is. So I think you are just muddying the water.


I think the big issue here isn't about Schiavo. The big issue is one
of medical ethics in general. Tony would have us "not play god" (or
maybe what he really means is "not play pope").

I think when someone says that, they are objecting to making medical
decisions that may determine life or death. But that horse is
irretrievably gone. Medicine is complex, and decisions get made every
day that determine life or death. Furthermore, this is unavoidable.
If you attempt to refuse to make the decision, that is a decision too,
and also has a life or death effect. (My ethical decision here would
result in saving many more lives: let Schiavo die, and use the
resources that would have paid for continued care for her to supply IV
fluids to babies dying of diarrhea in the third world. Cheap,
related, and life-saving.)

100 years ago, Schiavo would have died. As a society we've
effectively made the decision to develop and use the technologies that
have kept her breathing and kept her heart beating for 15 years in
spite of the fact that her mind is gone. That is "playing god" too.

Of course life-and-death decisions aren't limited to medicine. We (in
the U.S.) consider it OK to execute people. We consider it OK to
start a war costing tens of thousands of lives for psychological
reasons.

So I find it grossly ironic that some argue against doing the right
thing for Schiavo because men shouldn't be making decisions like this.
(By the way, these aren't the Schindler's arguments. They hold onto
misplaced hope that their daughter is capable of recovery, and that is
_their_ argument. Well, that and libeling their son-in-law.)

Doug

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:38bk95F5kkuefU1@individual.net...
100 years ago, Schiavo would have died. As a society we've effectively made the decision to develop and use the technologies that have kept her breathing and kept her heart beating for 15 years in spite of the fact that her mind is gone. That is "playing god" too.

This is a great point. To me, looking at it this way, it is black and white.
Either we play god, or we don't. Inserting a breathing tube is not allowing
her a "natural death" - that should be what the church is against.

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:38bk95F5kkuefU1@individual.net...
100 years ago, Schiavo would have died. As a society we've effectively made the decision to develop and use the technologies that have kept her breathing and kept her heart beating for 15 years in spite of the fact that her mind is gone. That is "playing god" too.

This is a great point. To me, looking at it this way, it is black and white.
Either we play god, or we don't. Inserting a breathing tube is not allowing
her a "natural death" - that should be what the church is against.

On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 08:49:34 -0500, Joy
<joy@joydoesntlikespam.com> wrote: "Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message news:slrnd206mu.f85.tony@home.cigardiary.com... On 25 Feb 2005 17:40:34 -0800, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote: Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes: (snip)> But this doesn't alter my opinion on feeding tubes for unconcious> people. What about feeding tubes for the brain dead? So what if somebody has legally with the proper witnessess and notarization filled out a form specifing clearly in black and white that, if they should every be in an irreversible coma or permanent vegetative state in which their physician has determined there there would be no recovery, medical treatment should be withheld or withdrawn - specifically authorizing the withholding or withdrawal of artificially provided food, water, or other nourishment or fluids? What would be your opinion on it in that case?

My opinion doesn't change. Legal does not necessarily equal moral or
ethical.

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 08:49:34 -0500, Joy
<joy@joydoesntlikespam.com> wrote: "Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message news:slrnd206mu.f85.tony@home.cigardiary.com... On 25 Feb 2005 17:40:34 -0800, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote: Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes: (snip)> But this doesn't alter my opinion on feeding tubes for unconcious> people. What about feeding tubes for the brain dead? So what if somebody has legally with the proper witnessess and notarization filled out a form specifing clearly in black and white that, if they should every be in an irreversible coma or permanent vegetative state in which their physician has determined there there would be no recovery, medical treatment should be withheld or withdrawn - specifically authorizing the withholding or withdrawal of artificially provided food, water, or other nourishment or fluids? What would be your opinion on it in that case?

My opinion doesn't change. Legal does not necessarily equal moral or
ethical.

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

On 26 Feb 2005 07:52:04 -0800, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote:

<Snip>
100 years ago, Schiavo would have died. As a society we've effectively made the decision to develop and use the technologies that have kept her breathing and kept her heart beating for 15 years in spite of the fact that her mind is gone. That is "playing god" too.

This statement proves that you have no clue what you are talking about.
Terri breathes on her own. Her heart beats on it's own. If she continues
to be fed, her heart will continue to beat and she will continue to
breathe until she stops, in which case she's dead.

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

On 26 Feb 2005 07:52:04 -0800, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote:

<Snip>
100 years ago, Schiavo would have died. As a society we've effectively made the decision to develop and use the technologies that have kept her breathing and kept her heart beating for 15 years in spite of the fact that her mind is gone. That is "playing god" too.

This statement proves that you have no clue what you are talking about.
Terri breathes on her own. Her heart beats on it's own. If she continues
to be fed, her heart will continue to beat and she will continue to
breathe until she stops, in which case she's dead.

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes:
On 26 Feb 2005 07:52:04 -0800, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote: <Snip> 100 years ago, Schiavo would have died. As a society we've effectively made the decision to develop and use the technologies that have kept her breathing and kept her heart beating for 15 years in spite of the fact that her mind is gone. That is "playing god" too. This statement proves that you have no clue what you are talking about. Terri breathes on her own. Her heart beats on it's own. If she continues to be fed, her heart will continue to beat and she will continue to breathe until she stops, in which case she's dead.

And what part of this proves I don't know what I'm talking about?

She doesn't swallow. 100 years ago, she wouldn't have a feeding tube,
which is precisely what the debate is about.

Stick to the issues instead of trying to project your ignorance on others.

Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes:
On 26 Feb 2005 07:52:04 -0800, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote: <Snip> 100 years ago, Schiavo would have died. As a society we've effectively made the decision to develop and use the technologies that have kept her breathing and kept her heart beating for 15 years in spite of the fact that her mind is gone. That is "playing god" too. This statement proves that you have no clue what you are talking about. Terri breathes on her own. Her heart beats on it's own. If she continues to be fed, her heart will continue to beat and she will continue to breathe until she stops, in which case she's dead.

And what part of this proves I don't know what I'm talking about?

She doesn't swallow. 100 years ago, she wouldn't have a feeding tube,
which is precisely what the debate is about.

Stick to the issues instead of trying to project your ignorance on others.

"Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd21p3k.juj.tony@home.cigardiary.com... On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 08:49:34 -0500, Joy <joy@joydoesntlikespam.com> wrote: "Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message news:slrnd206mu.f85.tony@home.cigardiary.com... On 25 Feb 2005 17:40:34 -0800, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote:> Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes:>> (snip)>>> But this doesn't alter my opinion on feeding tubes for unconcious>> people.>> What about feeding tubes for the brain dead?> So what if somebody has legally with the proper witnessess and notarization filled out a form specifing clearly in black and white that, if they should every be in an irreversible coma or permanent vegetative state in which their physician has determined there there would be no recovery, medical treatment should be withheld or withdrawn - specifically authorizing the withholding or withdrawal of artificially provided food, water, or other nourishment or fluids? What would be your opinion on it in that case? My opinion doesn't change. Legal does not necessarily equal moral or ethical. -Tony

In this case, though, the person has specifically said not to do artificial
feeding. Is following the persons wishes immoral or unethical?

"Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd21p3k.juj.tony@home.cigardiary.com... On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 08:49:34 -0500, Joy <joy@joydoesntlikespam.com> wrote: "Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message news:slrnd206mu.f85.tony@home.cigardiary.com... On 25 Feb 2005 17:40:34 -0800, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote:> Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes:>> (snip)>>> But this doesn't alter my opinion on feeding tubes for unconcious>> people.>> What about feeding tubes for the brain dead?> So what if somebody has legally with the proper witnessess and notarization filled out a form specifing clearly in black and white that, if they should every be in an irreversible coma or permanent vegetative state in which their physician has determined there there would be no recovery, medical treatment should be withheld or withdrawn - specifically authorizing the withholding or withdrawal of artificially provided food, water, or other nourishment or fluids? What would be your opinion on it in that case? My opinion doesn't change. Legal does not necessarily equal moral or ethical. -Tony

In this case, though, the person has specifically said not to do artificial
feeding. Is following the persons wishes immoral or unethical?

On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 16:20:31 -0500, Joy
<joy@joydoesntlikespam.com> wrote: "Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message news:slrnd21p3k.juj.tony@home.cigardiary.com... On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 08:49:34 -0500, Joy <joy@joydoesntlikespam.com> wrote: "Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message news:slrnd206mu.f85.tony@home.cigardiary.com...> On 25 Feb 2005 17:40:34 -0800, Doug Anderson> <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote:>> Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes:>>>> (snip)>>>>> But this doesn't alter my opinion on feeding tubes for unconcious>>> people.>>>> What about feeding tubes for the brain dead?>> So what if somebody has legally with the proper witnessess and notarization filled out a form specifing clearly in black and white that, if they should every be in an irreversible coma or permanent vegetative state in which their physician has determined there there would be no recovery, medical treatment should be withheld or withdrawn - specifically authorizing the withholding or withdrawal of artificially provided food, water, or other nourishment or fluids? What would be your opinion on it in that case? My opinion doesn't change. Legal does not necessarily equal moral or ethical. -Tony In this case, though, the person has specifically said not to do artificial feeding. Is following the persons wishes immoral or unethical?

When a person's wishes are immoral or unethical, yes. Was that a trick
question? Or do you globally follow people's wishes regardless of the
morality of them?

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 16:20:31 -0500, Joy
<joy@joydoesntlikespam.com> wrote: "Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message news:slrnd21p3k.juj.tony@home.cigardiary.com... On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 08:49:34 -0500, Joy <joy@joydoesntlikespam.com> wrote: "Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message news:slrnd206mu.f85.tony@home.cigardiary.com...> On 25 Feb 2005 17:40:34 -0800, Doug Anderson> <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote:>> Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes:>>>> (snip)>>>>> But this doesn't alter my opinion on feeding tubes for unconcious>>> people.>>>> What about feeding tubes for the brain dead?>> So what if somebody has legally with the proper witnessess and notarization filled out a form specifing clearly in black and white that, if they should every be in an irreversible coma or permanent vegetative state in which their physician has determined there there would be no recovery, medical treatment should be withheld or withdrawn - specifically authorizing the withholding or withdrawal of artificially provided food, water, or other nourishment or fluids? What would be your opinion on it in that case? My opinion doesn't change. Legal does not necessarily equal moral or ethical. -Tony In this case, though, the person has specifically said not to do artificial feeding. Is following the persons wishes immoral or unethical?

When a person's wishes are immoral or unethical, yes. Was that a trick
question? Or do you globally follow people's wishes regardless of the
morality of them?

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

On 26 Feb 2005 13:14:57 -0800, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote: Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes: On 26 Feb 2005 07:52:04 -0800, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote: <Snip> 100 years ago, Schiavo would have died. As a society we've effectively made the decision to develop and use the technologies that have kept her breathing and kept her heart beating for 15 years in spite of the fact that her mind is gone. That is "playing god" too. This statement proves that you have no clue what you are talking about. Terri breathes on her own. Her heart beats on it's own. If she continues to be fed, her heart will continue to beat and she will continue to breathe until she stops, in which case she's dead. And what part of this proves I don't know what I'm talking about? She doesn't swallow. 100 years ago, she wouldn't have a feeding tube, which is precisely what the debate is about.

And babies don't feed themselves. Your point is?
Stick to the issues instead of trying to project your ignorance on others.

*You* specifically stated that she was being kept breathing and her heart
was being kept beating artificially. I guess if providing her with food
is "artificial" we ought to let babies die because they can't feed
themselves.

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

On 26 Feb 2005 13:14:57 -0800, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote: Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes: On 26 Feb 2005 07:52:04 -0800, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote: <Snip> 100 years ago, Schiavo would have died. As a society we've effectively made the decision to develop and use the technologies that have kept her breathing and kept her heart beating for 15 years in spite of the fact that her mind is gone. That is "playing god" too. This statement proves that you have no clue what you are talking about. Terri breathes on her own. Her heart beats on it's own. If she continues to be fed, her heart will continue to beat and she will continue to breathe until she stops, in which case she's dead. And what part of this proves I don't know what I'm talking about? She doesn't swallow. 100 years ago, she wouldn't have a feeding tube, which is precisely what the debate is about.

And babies don't feed themselves. Your point is?
Stick to the issues instead of trying to project your ignorance on others.

*You* specifically stated that she was being kept breathing and her heart
was being kept beating artificially. I guess if providing her with food
is "artificial" we ought to let babies die because they can't feed
themselves.

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

"Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd22ghl.l0k.tony@home.cigardiary.com... When a person's wishes are immoral or unethical, yes. Was that a trick question? Or do you globally follow people's wishes regardless of the morality of them?

When it's a person's wishes regarding medical (especially end of life)
treatment, yes. Your morality is not the only acceptable.

Jess

"Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd22ghl.l0k.tony@home.cigardiary.com... When a person's wishes are immoral or unethical, yes. Was that a trick question? Or do you globally follow people's wishes regardless of the morality of them?

When it's a person's wishes regarding medical (especially end of life)
treatment, yes. Your morality is not the only acceptable.

Jess

"Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd22gkn.l0k.tony@home.cigardiary.com... *You* specifically stated that she was being kept breathing and her heart was being kept beating artificially. I guess if providing her with food is "artificial" we ought to let babies die because they can't feed themselves.

Babies have the capacity to swallow food and have higher order brain
functioning. Terri doesn't anymore, and never will.

Jess

"Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd22gkn.l0k.tony@home.cigardiary.com... *You* specifically stated that she was being kept breathing and her heart was being kept beating artificially. I guess if providing her with food is "artificial" we ought to let babies die because they can't feed themselves.

Babies have the capacity to swallow food and have higher order brain
functioning. Terri doesn't anymore, and never will.

Jess

"Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd22gkn.l0k.tony@home.cigardiary.com... On 26 Feb 2005 13:14:57 -0800, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote: Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes: On 26 Feb 2005 07:52:04 -0800, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote: <Snip> > 100 years ago, Schiavo would have died. As a society we've > effectively made the decision to develop and use the technologies that > have kept her breathing and kept her heart beating for 15 years in > spite of the fact that her mind is gone. That is "playing god" too. This statement proves that you have no clue what you are talking about. Terri breathes on her own. Her heart beats on it's own. If she continues to be fed, her heart will continue to beat and she will continue to breathe until she stops, in which case she's dead. And what part of this proves I don't know what I'm talking about? She doesn't swallow. 100 years ago, she wouldn't have a feeding tube, which is precisely what the debate is about. And babies don't feed themselves. Your point is? Stick to the issues instead of trying to project your ignorance on others. *You* specifically stated that she was being kept breathing and her heart was being kept beating artificially. I guess if providing her with food is "artificial" we ought to let babies die because they can't feed themselves.

It seems that it might be relevant that in babies this is strictly a
temporary situation, and that as they mature they will develop the ability
to feed themselves. It is also true that in one sense babies can feed
themselves - they can swallow - and they do not require feeding tubes.
Therefore, comparison with a baby in this case is not a useful analogy.

"Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd22gkn.l0k.tony@home.cigardiary.com... On 26 Feb 2005 13:14:57 -0800, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote: Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes: On 26 Feb 2005 07:52:04 -0800, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote: <Snip> > 100 years ago, Schiavo would have died. As a society we've > effectively made the decision to develop and use the technologies that > have kept her breathing and kept her heart beating for 15 years in > spite of the fact that her mind is gone. That is "playing god" too. This statement proves that you have no clue what you are talking about. Terri breathes on her own. Her heart beats on it's own. If she continues to be fed, her heart will continue to beat and she will continue to breathe until she stops, in which case she's dead. And what part of this proves I don't know what I'm talking about? She doesn't swallow. 100 years ago, she wouldn't have a feeding tube, which is precisely what the debate is about. And babies don't feed themselves. Your point is? Stick to the issues instead of trying to project your ignorance on others. *You* specifically stated that she was being kept breathing and her heart was being kept beating artificially. I guess if providing her with food is "artificial" we ought to let babies die because they can't feed themselves.

It seems that it might be relevant that in babies this is strictly a
temporary situation, and that as they mature they will develop the ability
to feed themselves. It is also true that in one sense babies can feed
themselves - they can swallow - and they do not require feeding tubes.
Therefore, comparison with a baby in this case is not a useful analogy.

"Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd22ghl.l0k.tony@home.cigardiary.com... On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 16:20:31 -0500, Joy <joy@joydoesntlikespam.com> wrote:>> So what if somebody has legally with the proper witnessess and> notarization> filled out a form specifing clearly in black and white that, if they> should> every be in an irreversible coma or permanent vegetative state in which> their physician has determined there there would be no recovery,> medical> treatment should be withheld or withdrawn - specifically authorizing> the> withholding or withdrawal of artificially provided food, water, or> other> nourishment or fluids? What would be your opinion on it in that case? My opinion doesn't change. Legal does not necessarily equal moral or ethical. -Tony In this case, though, the person has specifically said not to do artificial feeding. Is following the persons wishes immoral or unethical? When a person's wishes are immoral or unethical, yes. Was that a trick question? Or do you globally follow people's wishes regardless of the morality of them? -Tony

No, it was not a trick question. Not a strictly academic one, either. I
happen to hold power of attorney for my parents, who have explicitly and
clearly stated in writing, with no ambiguity at all, that under those
circumstances they do not want artificial life support. It is entirely
possible that some day I will be called upon to make such a decision (which
may well be true for many of the posters here).

What I am trying to understand is the point of view that states that
withholding artificial life support is immoral or unethical. (Keeping in
mind that I am not Catholic, and therefore for me any statement from the
Pope carries no more moral weight than a statement from, say, my neighbor.
Possibly less, since I actually know my neighbor.)

If I understand correctly, your stance seems to be that it is always morally
required to keep the body breathing and heart beating until the very last
possible instant (which does not make sense to me, since for a Christian
death means being reunited with God - which is supposed to be a good thing,
the desired end result of a Christian life). So what about a 90 year old
who has had a major stroke and is never going to wake up? Perhaps it would
be possible to keep the body alive for a period of time by artificial
feeding. Would you consider that to be a moral imperative? If so, why?
What would be the point?

"Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd22ghl.l0k.tony@home.cigardiary.com... On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 16:20:31 -0500, Joy <joy@joydoesntlikespam.com> wrote:>> So what if somebody has legally with the proper witnessess and> notarization> filled out a form specifing clearly in black and white that, if they> should> every be in an irreversible coma or permanent vegetative state in which> their physician has determined there there would be no recovery,> medical> treatment should be withheld or withdrawn - specifically authorizing> the> withholding or withdrawal of artificially provided food, water, or> other> nourishment or fluids? What would be your opinion on it in that case? My opinion doesn't change. Legal does not necessarily equal moral or ethical. -Tony In this case, though, the person has specifically said not to do artificial feeding. Is following the persons wishes immoral or unethical? When a person's wishes are immoral or unethical, yes. Was that a trick question? Or do you globally follow people's wishes regardless of the morality of them? -Tony

No, it was not a trick question. Not a strictly academic one, either. I
happen to hold power of attorney for my parents, who have explicitly and
clearly stated in writing, with no ambiguity at all, that under those
circumstances they do not want artificial life support. It is entirely
possible that some day I will be called upon to make such a decision (which
may well be true for many of the posters here).

What I am trying to understand is the point of view that states that
withholding artificial life support is immoral or unethical. (Keeping in
mind that I am not Catholic, and therefore for me any statement from the
Pope carries no more moral weight than a statement from, say, my neighbor.
Possibly less, since I actually know my neighbor.)

If I understand correctly, your stance seems to be that it is always morally
required to keep the body breathing and heart beating until the very last
possible instant (which does not make sense to me, since for a Christian
death means being reunited with God - which is supposed to be a good thing,
the desired end result of a Christian life). So what about a 90 year old
who has had a major stroke and is never going to wake up? Perhaps it would
be possible to keep the body alive for a period of time by artificial
feeding. Would you consider that to be a moral imperative? If so, why?
What would be the point?

Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes:
On 26 Feb 2005 13:14:57 -0800, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote: Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes: On 26 Feb 2005 07:52:04 -0800, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote: <Snip> > 100 years ago, Schiavo would have died. As a society we've > effectively made the decision to develop and use the technologies that > have kept her breathing and kept her heart beating for 15 years in > spite of the fact that her mind is gone. That is "playing god" too. This statement proves that you have no clue what you are talking about. Terri breathes on her own. Her heart beats on it's own. If she continues to be fed, her heart will continue to beat and she will continue to breathe until she stops, in which case she's dead. And what part of this proves I don't know what I'm talking about? She doesn't swallow. 100 years ago, she wouldn't have a feeding tube, which is precisely what the debate is about. And babies don't feed themselves. Your point is? Stick to the issues instead of trying to project your ignorance on others. *You* specifically stated that she was being kept breathing and her heart was being kept beating artificially.

I didn't say that.
I guess if providing her with food is "artificial" we ought to let babies die because they can't feed themselves.

Is that really what you think?

It isn't what I think. Nor is it what I've said.

Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes:
On 26 Feb 2005 13:14:57 -0800, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote: Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes: On 26 Feb 2005 07:52:04 -0800, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote: <Snip> > 100 years ago, Schiavo would have died. As a society we've > effectively made the decision to develop and use the technologies that > have kept her breathing and kept her heart beating for 15 years in > spite of the fact that her mind is gone. That is "playing god" too. This statement proves that you have no clue what you are talking about. Terri breathes on her own. Her heart beats on it's own. If she continues to be fed, her heart will continue to beat and she will continue to breathe until she stops, in which case she's dead. And what part of this proves I don't know what I'm talking about? She doesn't swallow. 100 years ago, she wouldn't have a feeding tube, which is precisely what the debate is about. And babies don't feed themselves. Your point is? Stick to the issues instead of trying to project your ignorance on others. *You* specifically stated that she was being kept breathing and her heart was being kept beating artificially.

I didn't say that.
I guess if providing her with food is "artificial" we ought to let babies die because they can't feed themselves.

Is that really what you think?

It isn't what I think. Nor is it what I've said.

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 00:22:44 -0500, Joy
<joy@joydoesntlikespam.com> wrote: "Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message news:slrnd22ghl.l0k.tony@home.cigardiary.com... On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 16:20:31 -0500, Joy <joy@joydoesntlikespam.com> wrote:>>>> So what if somebody has legally with the proper witnessess and>> notarization>> filled out a form specifing clearly in black and white that, if they>> should>> every be in an irreversible coma or permanent vegetative state in which>> their physician has determined there there would be no recovery,>> medical>> treatment should be withheld or withdrawn - specifically authorizing>> the>> withholding or withdrawal of artificially provided food, water, or>> other>> nourishment or fluids? What would be your opinion on it in that case?>> My opinion doesn't change. Legal does not necessarily equal moral or> ethical.>> -Tony> In this case, though, the person has specifically said not to do artificial feeding. Is following the persons wishes immoral or unethical? When a person's wishes are immoral or unethical, yes. Was that a trick question? Or do you globally follow people's wishes regardless of the morality of them? -Tony No, it was not a trick question. Not a strictly academic one, either. I happen to hold power of attorney for my parents, who have explicitly and clearly stated in writing, with no ambiguity at all, that under those circumstances they do not want artificial life support. It is entirely possible that some day I will be called upon to make such a decision (which may well be true for many of the posters here).

As I may be called to do at some point in my life.
What I am trying to understand is the point of view that states that withholding artificial life support is immoral or unethical. (Keeping in mind that I am not Catholic, and therefore for me any statement from the Pope carries no more moral weight than a statement from, say, my neighbor. Possibly less, since I actually know my neighbor.)

The point of view is that food and water is not artificial life support.
You've (inadvertently, I'm sure) built a straw man that extended the very
specific situation of providing food and water to an unconcious patient to
encompass "artificial life support". I probably did not make my views
sufficiently clear, or you have been distracted by the views of others.
If I understand correctly, your stance seems to be that it is always morally required to keep the body breathing and heart beating until the very last possible instant (which does not make sense to me, since for a Christian

No, your understanding of my stance is wrong.
death means being reunited with God - which is supposed to be a good thing, the desired end result of a Christian life). So what about a 90 year old who has had a major stroke and is never going to wake up? Perhaps it would be possible to keep the body alive for a period of time by artificial feeding. Would you consider that to be a moral imperative? If so, why? What would be the point?

There would be no point. Should this person need a ventilator to breathe,
I would be the first person to ascede to their wishes and switch it off.

But here we are talking about food and water, the withholding of which is
tantamount to "passive euthanasia" somewhat akin to walling up an able
bodied person as in the Edgar Allen Poe story. Others, such as Doug, have
suggested that we resort to active euthanasia as in "give am a shot".

I think the big confusion in this is what each of us considers "heroic" or
"routine".

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 00:22:44 -0500, Joy
<joy@joydoesntlikespam.com> wrote: "Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message news:slrnd22ghl.l0k.tony@home.cigardiary.com... On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 16:20:31 -0500, Joy <joy@joydoesntlikespam.com> wrote:>>>> So what if somebody has legally with the proper witnessess and>> notarization>> filled out a form specifing clearly in black and white that, if they>> should>> every be in an irreversible coma or permanent vegetative state in which>> their physician has determined there there would be no recovery,>> medical>> treatment should be withheld or withdrawn - specifically authorizing>> the>> withholding or withdrawal of artificially provided food, water, or>> other>> nourishment or fluids? What would be your opinion on it in that case?>> My opinion doesn't change. Legal does not necessarily equal moral or> ethical.>> -Tony> In this case, though, the person has specifically said not to do artificial feeding. Is following the persons wishes immoral or unethical? When a person's wishes are immoral or unethical, yes. Was that a trick question? Or do you globally follow people's wishes regardless of the morality of them? -Tony No, it was not a trick question. Not a strictly academic one, either. I happen to hold power of attorney for my parents, who have explicitly and clearly stated in writing, with no ambiguity at all, that under those circumstances they do not want artificial life support. It is entirely possible that some day I will be called upon to make such a decision (which may well be true for many of the posters here).

As I may be called to do at some point in my life.
What I am trying to understand is the point of view that states that withholding artificial life support is immoral or unethical. (Keeping in mind that I am not Catholic, and therefore for me any statement from the Pope carries no more moral weight than a statement from, say, my neighbor. Possibly less, since I actually know my neighbor.)

The point of view is that food and water is not artificial life support.
You've (inadvertently, I'm sure) built a straw man that extended the very
specific situation of providing food and water to an unconcious patient to
encompass "artificial life support". I probably did not make my views
sufficiently clear, or you have been distracted by the views of others.
If I understand correctly, your stance seems to be that it is always morally required to keep the body breathing and heart beating until the very last possible instant (which does not make sense to me, since for a Christian

No, your understanding of my stance is wrong.
death means being reunited with God - which is supposed to be a good thing, the desired end result of a Christian life). So what about a 90 year old who has had a major stroke and is never going to wake up? Perhaps it would be possible to keep the body alive for a period of time by artificial feeding. Would you consider that to be a moral imperative? If so, why? What would be the point?

There would be no point. Should this person need a ventilator to breathe,
I would be the first person to ascede to their wishes and switch it off.

But here we are talking about food and water, the withholding of which is
tantamount to "passive euthanasia" somewhat akin to walling up an able
bodied person as in the Edgar Allen Poe story. Others, such as Doug, have
suggested that we resort to active euthanasia as in "give am a shot".

I think the big confusion in this is what each of us considers "heroic" or
"routine".

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

"Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd23rvk.alj.tony@home.cigardiary.com... On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 00:22:44 -0500, Joy <joy@joydoesntlikespam.com> wrote: "Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message news:slrnd22ghl.l0k.tony@home.cigardiary.com... On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 16:20:31 -0500, Joy <joy@joydoesntlikespam.com> wrote:>>>>>>> So what if somebody has legally with the proper witnessess and>>> notarization>>> filled out a form specifing clearly in black and white that, if they>>> should>>> every be in an irreversible coma or permanent vegetative state in>>> which>>> their physician has determined there there would be no recovery,>>> medical>>> treatment should be withheld or withdrawn - specifically authorizing>>> the>>> withholding or withdrawal of artificially provided food, water, or>>> other>>> nourishment or fluids? What would be your opinion on it in that>>> case?>>>> My opinion doesn't change. Legal does not necessarily equal moral or>> ethical.>>>> -Tony>>>> In this case, though, the person has specifically said not to do> artificial> feeding. Is following the persons wishes immoral or unethical? When a person's wishes are immoral or unethical, yes. Was that a trick question? Or do you globally follow people's wishes regardless of the morality of them? -Tony No, it was not a trick question. Not a strictly academic one, either. I happen to hold power of attorney for my parents, who have explicitly and clearly stated in writing, with no ambiguity at all, that under those circumstances they do not want artificial life support. It is entirely possible that some day I will be called upon to make such a decision (which may well be true for many of the posters here). As I may be called to do at some point in my life. What I am trying to understand is the point of view that states that withholding artificial life support is immoral or unethical. (Keeping in mind that I am not Catholic, and therefore for me any statement from the Pope carries no more moral weight than a statement from, say, my neighbor. Possibly less, since I actually know my neighbor.) The point of view is that food and water is not artificial life support. You've (inadvertently, I'm sure) built a straw man that extended the very specific situation of providing food and water to an unconcious patient to encompass "artificial life support". I probably did not make my views sufficiently clear, or you have been distracted by the views of others. If I understand correctly, your stance seems to be that it is always morally required to keep the body breathing and heart beating until the very last possible instant (which does not make sense to me, since for a Christian No, your understanding of my stance is wrong. death means being reunited with God - which is supposed to be a good thing, the desired end result of a Christian life). So what about a 90 year old who has had a major stroke and is never going to wake up? Perhaps it would be possible to keep the body alive for a period of time by artificial feeding. Would you consider that to be a moral imperative? If so, why? What would be the point? There would be no point. Should this person need a ventilator to breathe, I would be the first person to ascede to their wishes and switch it off.

Suppose this 90 year old has just had a major stroke, with no hope of
regaining consciousness, but is still breathing on his/her own. Would you
put in a feeding tube?
But here we are talking about food and water, the withholding of which is tantamount to "passive euthanasia" somewhat akin to walling up an able bodied person as in the Edgar Allen Poe story.

Well, the Poe story isn't such a good analogy (though it is a classic -
here's some info on it, for anybody who might not have read it for a while:
http://www.poedecoder.com/essays/usher/ )

Others, such as Doug, have suggested that we resort to active euthanasia as in "give am a shot". I think the big confusion in this is what each of us considers "heroic" or "routine".

That is part of it, of course. I also think there is some element of what
each of us considers to be life. Is it enough to just have a breathing body
with a beating heart, or is there a non-physical component which includes a
distinct personality and the potential for consciousness that must be
present to be "alive"? I think that differences of opinion in what it
really means to be alive may be more the root here.

"Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd23rvk.alj.tony@home.cigardiary.com... On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 00:22:44 -0500, Joy <joy@joydoesntlikespam.com> wrote: "Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message news:slrnd22ghl.l0k.tony@home.cigardiary.com... On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 16:20:31 -0500, Joy <joy@joydoesntlikespam.com> wrote:>>>>>>> So what if somebody has legally with the proper witnessess and>>> notarization>>> filled out a form specifing clearly in black and white that, if they>>> should>>> every be in an irreversible coma or permanent vegetative state in>>> which>>> their physician has determined there there would be no recovery,>>> medical>>> treatment should be withheld or withdrawn - specifically authorizing>>> the>>> withholding or withdrawal of artificially provided food, water, or>>> other>>> nourishment or fluids? What would be your opinion on it in that>>> case?>>>> My opinion doesn't change. Legal does not necessarily equal moral or>> ethical.>>>> -Tony>>>> In this case, though, the person has specifically said not to do> artificial> feeding. Is following the persons wishes immoral or unethical? When a person's wishes are immoral or unethical, yes. Was that a trick question? Or do you globally follow people's wishes regardless of the morality of them? -Tony No, it was not a trick question. Not a strictly academic one, either. I happen to hold power of attorney for my parents, who have explicitly and clearly stated in writing, with no ambiguity at all, that under those circumstances they do not want artificial life support. It is entirely possible that some day I will be called upon to make such a decision (which may well be true for many of the posters here). As I may be called to do at some point in my life. What I am trying to understand is the point of view that states that withholding artificial life support is immoral or unethical. (Keeping in mind that I am not Catholic, and therefore for me any statement from the Pope carries no more moral weight than a statement from, say, my neighbor. Possibly less, since I actually know my neighbor.) The point of view is that food and water is not artificial life support. You've (inadvertently, I'm sure) built a straw man that extended the very specific situation of providing food and water to an unconcious patient to encompass "artificial life support". I probably did not make my views sufficiently clear, or you have been distracted by the views of others. If I understand correctly, your stance seems to be that it is always morally required to keep the body breathing and heart beating until the very last possible instant (which does not make sense to me, since for a Christian No, your understanding of my stance is wrong. death means being reunited with God - which is supposed to be a good thing, the desired end result of a Christian life). So what about a 90 year old who has had a major stroke and is never going to wake up? Perhaps it would be possible to keep the body alive for a period of time by artificial feeding. Would you consider that to be a moral imperative? If so, why? What would be the point? There would be no point. Should this person need a ventilator to breathe, I would be the first person to ascede to their wishes and switch it off.

Suppose this 90 year old has just had a major stroke, with no hope of
regaining consciousness, but is still breathing on his/her own. Would you
put in a feeding tube?
But here we are talking about food and water, the withholding of which is tantamount to "passive euthanasia" somewhat akin to walling up an able bodied person as in the Edgar Allen Poe story.

Well, the Poe story isn't such a good analogy (though it is a classic -
here's some info on it, for anybody who might not have read it for a while:
http://www.poedecoder.com/essays/usher/ )

Others, such as Doug, have suggested that we resort to active euthanasia as in "give am a shot". I think the big confusion in this is what each of us considers "heroic" or "routine".

That is part of it, of course. I also think there is some element of what
each of us considers to be life. Is it enough to just have a breathing body
with a beating heart, or is there a non-physical component which includes a
distinct personality and the potential for consciousness that must be
present to be "alive"? I think that differences of opinion in what it
really means to be alive may be more the root here.

Tony Miller wrote:
There would be no point. Should this person need a ventilator to breathe, I would be the first person to ascede to their wishes and switch it off. But here we are talking about food and water, the withholding of which is tantamount to "passive euthanasia" somewhat akin to walling up an able bodied person as in the Edgar Allen Poe story.

Air is as vital as food and water for sustaining life. Though I
understand that you have some beliefs that don't necessarily make
logical sense, you cannot possibly put a higher value on food and water
than air. So it must be that you make a qualitative distinction between
the functions of different parts of the body, right? If the body becomes
unable to get the needed oxygen on its own you think it should not be
provided by artificial means, but when it becomes unable to take in the
needed food and water you think we should artificially provide it. Very
interesting (and arbitrary) distinction. Is that the position of the
Pope? Inquiring minds want to know...

Tony Miller wrote:
There would be no point. Should this person need a ventilator to breathe, I would be the first person to ascede to their wishes and switch it off. But here we are talking about food and water, the withholding of which is tantamount to "passive euthanasia" somewhat akin to walling up an able bodied person as in the Edgar Allen Poe story.

Air is as vital as food and water for sustaining life. Though I
understand that you have some beliefs that don't necessarily make
logical sense, you cannot possibly put a higher value on food and water
than air. So it must be that you make a qualitative distinction between
the functions of different parts of the body, right? If the body becomes
unable to get the needed oxygen on its own you think it should not be
provided by artificial means, but when it becomes unable to take in the
needed food and water you think we should artificially provide it. Very
interesting (and arbitrary) distinction. Is that the position of the
Pope? Inquiring minds want to know...

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 16:28:46 -0500, Joy
<joy@joydoesntlikespam.com> wrote: "Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message news:slrnd23rvk.alj.tony@home.cigardiary.com... On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 00:22:44 -0500, Joy <joy@joydoesntlikespam.com> wrote: "Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message news:slrnd22ghl.l0k.tony@home.cigardiary.com...> On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 16:20:31 -0500, Joy> <joy@joydoesntlikespam.com> wrote:>>>>>>>>>> So what if somebody has legally with the proper witnessess and>>>> notarization>>>> filled out a form specifing clearly in black and white that, if they>>>> should>>>> every be in an irreversible coma or permanent vegetative state in>>>> which>>>> their physician has determined there there would be no recovery,>>>> medical>>>> treatment should be withheld or withdrawn - specifically authorizing>>>> the>>>> withholding or withdrawal of artificially provided food, water, or>>>> other>>>> nourishment or fluids? What would be your opinion on it in that>>>> case?>>>>>> My opinion doesn't change. Legal does not necessarily equal moral or>>> ethical.>>>>>> -Tony>>>>>>> In this case, though, the person has specifically said not to do>> artificial>> feeding. Is following the persons wishes immoral or unethical?>> When a person's wishes are immoral or unethical, yes. Was that a trick> question? Or do you globally follow people's wishes regardless of the> morality of them?>> -Tony No, it was not a trick question. Not a strictly academic one, either. I happen to hold power of attorney for my parents, who have explicitly and clearly stated in writing, with no ambiguity at all, that under those circumstances they do not want artificial life support. It is entirely possible that some day I will be called upon to make such a decision (which may well be true for many of the posters here). As I may be called to do at some point in my life. What I am trying to understand is the point of view that states that withholding artificial life support is immoral or unethical. (Keeping in mind that I am not Catholic, and therefore for me any statement from the Pope carries no more moral weight than a statement from, say, my neighbor. Possibly less, since I actually know my neighbor.) The point of view is that food and water is not artificial life support. You've (inadvertently, I'm sure) built a straw man that extended the very specific situation of providing food and water to an unconcious patient to encompass "artificial life support". I probably did not make my views sufficiently clear, or you have been distracted by the views of others. If I understand correctly, your stance seems to be that it is always morally required to keep the body breathing and heart beating until the very last possible instant (which does not make sense to me, since for a Christian No, your understanding of my stance is wrong. death means being reunited with God - which is supposed to be a good thing, the desired end result of a Christian life). So what about a 90 year old who has had a major stroke and is never going to wake up? Perhaps it would be possible to keep the body alive for a period of time by artificial feeding. Would you consider that to be a moral imperative? If so, why? What would be the point? There would be no point. Should this person need a ventilator to breathe, I would be the first person to ascede to their wishes and switch it off. Suppose this 90 year old has just had a major stroke, with no hope of regaining consciousness, but is still breathing on his/her own. Would you put in a feeding tube?

Yes. Food and water is a basic necessity of life. What about someone who
was active and alert, though could not swallow. Would *you* put in a
feeding tube?
But here we are talking about food and water, the withholding of which is tantamount to "passive euthanasia" somewhat akin to walling up an able bodied person as in the Edgar Allen Poe story. Well, the Poe story isn't such a good analogy (though it is a classic - here's some info on it, for anybody who might not have read it for a while: http://www.poedecoder.com/essays/usher/ )

You never know. It might be an incredibly apt analogy. This woman,
though almost completely non-responsive might be completely aware. She
might be garnering the discussion around her and is horrified, though
unable to communicate it.
Others, such as Doug, have suggested that we resort to active euthanasia as in "give am a shot". I think the big confusion in this is what each of us considers "heroic" or "routine". That is part of it, of course. I also think there is some element of what each of us considers to be life. Is it enough to just have a breathing body with a beating heart, or is there a non-physical component which includes a distinct personality and the potential for consciousness that must be present to be "alive"? I think that differences of opinion in what it really means to be alive may be more the root here.

Well, sure. And it also matters whether you believe in miracles or not.

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 16:28:46 -0500, Joy
<joy@joydoesntlikespam.com> wrote: "Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message news:slrnd23rvk.alj.tony@home.cigardiary.com... On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 00:22:44 -0500, Joy <joy@joydoesntlikespam.com> wrote: "Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message news:slrnd22ghl.l0k.tony@home.cigardiary.com...> On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 16:20:31 -0500, Joy> <joy@joydoesntlikespam.com> wrote:>>>>>>>>>> So what if somebody has legally with the proper witnessess and>>>> notarization>>>> filled out a form specifing clearly in black and white that, if they>>>> should>>>> every be in an irreversible coma or permanent vegetative state in>>>> which>>>> their physician has determined there there would be no recovery,>>>> medical>>>> treatment should be withheld or withdrawn - specifically authorizing>>>> the>>>> withholding or withdrawal of artificially provided food, water, or>>>> other>>>> nourishment or fluids? What would be your opinion on it in that>>>> case?>>>>>> My opinion doesn't change. Legal does not necessarily equal moral or>>> ethical.>>>>>> -Tony>>>>>>> In this case, though, the person has specifically said not to do>> artificial>> feeding. Is following the persons wishes immoral or unethical?>> When a person's wishes are immoral or unethical, yes. Was that a trick> question? Or do you globally follow people's wishes regardless of the> morality of them?>> -Tony No, it was not a trick question. Not a strictly academic one, either. I happen to hold power of attorney for my parents, who have explicitly and clearly stated in writing, with no ambiguity at all, that under those circumstances they do not want artificial life support. It is entirely possible that some day I will be called upon to make such a decision (which may well be true for many of the posters here). As I may be called to do at some point in my life. What I am trying to understand is the point of view that states that withholding artificial life support is immoral or unethical. (Keeping in mind that I am not Catholic, and therefore for me any statement from the Pope carries no more moral weight than a statement from, say, my neighbor. Possibly less, since I actually know my neighbor.) The point of view is that food and water is not artificial life support. You've (inadvertently, I'm sure) built a straw man that extended the very specific situation of providing food and water to an unconcious patient to encompass "artificial life support". I probably did not make my views sufficiently clear, or you have been distracted by the views of others. If I understand correctly, your stance seems to be that it is always morally required to keep the body breathing and heart beating until the very last possible instant (which does not make sense to me, since for a Christian No, your understanding of my stance is wrong. death means being reunited with God - which is supposed to be a good thing, the desired end result of a Christian life). So what about a 90 year old who has had a major stroke and is never going to wake up? Perhaps it would be possible to keep the body alive for a period of time by artificial feeding. Would you consider that to be a moral imperative? If so, why? What would be the point? There would be no point. Should this person need a ventilator to breathe, I would be the first person to ascede to their wishes and switch it off. Suppose this 90 year old has just had a major stroke, with no hope of regaining consciousness, but is still breathing on his/her own. Would you put in a feeding tube?

Yes. Food and water is a basic necessity of life. What about someone who
was active and alert, though could not swallow. Would *you* put in a
feeding tube?
But here we are talking about food and water, the withholding of which is tantamount to "passive euthanasia" somewhat akin to walling up an able bodied person as in the Edgar Allen Poe story. Well, the Poe story isn't such a good analogy (though it is a classic - here's some info on it, for anybody who might not have read it for a while: http://www.poedecoder.com/essays/usher/ )

You never know. It might be an incredibly apt analogy. This woman,
though almost completely non-responsive might be completely aware. She
might be garnering the discussion around her and is horrified, though
unable to communicate it.
Others, such as Doug, have suggested that we resort to active euthanasia as in "give am a shot". I think the big confusion in this is what each of us considers "heroic" or "routine". That is part of it, of course. I also think there is some element of what each of us considers to be life. Is it enough to just have a breathing body with a beating heart, or is there a non-physical component which includes a distinct personality and the potential for consciousness that must be present to be "alive"? I think that differences of opinion in what it really means to be alive may be more the root here.

Well, sure. And it also matters whether you believe in miracles or not.

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

Joy wrote: "Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message news:slrnd23rvk.alj.tony@home.cigardiary.com... On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 00:22:44 -0500, Joy <joy@joydoesntlikespam.com> wrote: "Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message news:slrnd22ghl.l0k.tony@home.cigardiary.com...> On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 16:20:31 -0500, Joy> <joy@joydoesntlikespam.com> wrote:>>>>>>>>>> So what if somebody has legally with the proper witnessess and>>>> notarization>>>> filled out a form specifing clearly in black and white that, if they>>>> should>>>> every be in an irrevers