Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Right To Live / Die (Terri Schiavo)

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Right To Live / Die (Terri Schiavo)

    Tony Miller <[email protected]> writes:
    On 26 Feb 2005 07:52:04 -0800, Doug Anderson <[email protected]> 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.

    Comment


    • #32
      Right To Live / Die (Terri Schiavo)


      "Tony Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
      news:[email protected]
      On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 08:49:34 -0500, Joy <[email protected]> wrote:
      "Tony Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
      On 25 Feb 2005 17:40:34 -0800, Doug Anderson <[email protected]> wrote:> Tony Miller <[email protected]> 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state in which their physician has determined there there would be no recovery, medical treatment should be withheld or withdrawn - specifically authorizing the withholding or withdrawal of artificially provided food, water, or other nourishment or fluids?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?


      Comment


      • #33
        Right To Live / Die (Terri Schiavo)


        "Tony Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
        news:[email protected]
        On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 08:49:34 -0500, Joy <[email protected]> wrote:
        "Tony Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
        On 25 Feb 2005 17:40:34 -0800, Doug Anderson <[email protected]> wrote:> Tony Miller <[email protected]> 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?


        Comment


        • #34
          Right To Live / Die (Terri Schiavo)

          On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 16:20:31 -0500, Joy
          <[email protected]> wrote:
          "Tony Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
          On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 08:49:34 -0500, Joy <[email protected]> wrote:
          "Tony Miller" <[email protected]om> wrote in message news:[email protected]> On 25 Feb 2005 17:40:34 -0800, Doug Anderson> <[email protected]> wrote:>> Tony Miller <[email protected]> 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.

          Comment


          • #35
            Right To Live / Die (Terri Schiavo)

            On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 16:20:31 -0500, Joy
            <[email protected]> wrote:
            "Tony Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
            On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 08:49:34 -0500, Joy <[email protected]> wrote:
            "Tony Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]> On 25 Feb 2005 17:40:34 -0800, Doug Anderson> <[email protected]> wrote:>> Tony Miller <[email protected]> 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.

            Comment


            • #36
              Right To Live / Die (Terri Schiavo)

              On 26 Feb 2005 13:14:57 -0800, Doug Anderson
              <[email protected]> wrote:
              Tony Miller <[email protected]> writes:
              On 26 Feb 2005 07:52:04 -0800, Doug Anderson <[email protected]> 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.

              Comment


              • #37
                Right To Live / Die (Terri Schiavo)

                On 26 Feb 2005 13:14:57 -0800, Doug Anderson
                <[email protected]> wrote:
                Tony Miller <[email protected]> writes:
                On 26 Feb 2005 07:52:04 -0800, Doug Anderson <[email protected]> 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.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Right To Live / Die (Terri Schiavo)


                  "Tony Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
                  news:[email protected]
                  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


                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Right To Live / Die (Terri Schiavo)


                    "Tony Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
                    news:[email protected]
                    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


                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Right To Live / Die (Terri Schiavo)


                      "Tony Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
                      news:[email protected]
                      *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


                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Right To Live / Die (Terri Schiavo)


                        "Tony Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
                        news:[email protected]
                        *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


                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Right To Live / Die (Terri Schiavo)


                          "Tony Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
                          news:[email protected]
                          On 26 Feb 2005 13:14:57 -0800, Doug Anderson <[email protected]> wrote:
                          Tony Miller <[email protected]> writes:
                          On 26 Feb 2005 07:52:04 -0800, Doug Anderson <[email protected]> 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.



                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Right To Live / Die (Terri Schiavo)


                            "Tony Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
                            news:[email protected]..
                            On 26 Feb 2005 13:14:57 -0800, Doug Anderson <[email protected]> wrote:
                            Tony Miller <[email protected]> writes:
                            On 26 Feb 2005 07:52:04 -0800, Doug Anderson <[email protected]> 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.



                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Right To Live / Die (Terri Schiavo)


                              "Tony Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
                              news:[email protected]
                              On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 16:20:31 -0500, Joy <[email protected]> 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?



                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Right To Live / Die (Terri Schiavo)


                                "Tony Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
                                news:[email protected]
                                On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 16:20:31 -0500, Joy <[email protected]> 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?



                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X