Terri Schiavo: Please explain something to me...

[dissention]

Originally Posted by Mad4stevie

I think a ventilator is different than a feeding tube. Ventilators are much more invasive of a procedure than a feeding tube.

But they're both forms of life support. The feeding tube keeps her alive like a ventilator would keep someone else alive. They have no problems turning off ventilators, what's the difference when it comes to a feeding tube?

[Mad4stevie]

Originally Posted by ShangriLaTroubl

You have many people who say "Terri Schiavo, however, is not a dying woman.Terri is a healthy woman with a disability." I think that's stretching things a lot..

The issue here is that Terri may be in a vegatative state, but she is not terminally ill. In my opinion, that is the difference between hospice care and the witholding of food to a terminally ill person, and this case, where Terri very well may live for another 30 years.

My main concern is that this will set a kind of standard for what we (society) determine to be quality of life. And where does that stop, exactly? If there is a determination that this type of existence is unacceptable, will there be a point where society determines that those with extreme physical and/or mental disabilities are no longer "worth" it?

[Mad4stevie]

Originally Posted by dissention

But they're both forms of life support. The feeding tube keeps her alive like a ventilator would keep someone else alive. They have no problems turning off ventilators, what's the difference when it comes to a feeding tube?

Well, one main difference is that if a ventilator is removed, the person either begins to breathe on their own or they die within minutes. Removal of a feeding tube is much more of a drawn out process.

Also, I think it is important to note that most people associate "life support" with a ventilator, instead of a feeding tube. I know that I do. Is there specific evidence that Terri mentioned or even thought about a feeding tube vs. a ventilator when making any kind of statements about not wanting to live on life support?

[amber]

Originally Posted by Mad4stevie

Well, one main difference is that if a ventilator is removed, the person either begins to breathe on their own or they die within minutes. Removal of a feeding tube is much more of a drawn out process.

Also, I think it is important to note that most people associate "life support" with a ventilator, instead of a feeding tube. I know that I do. Is there specific evidence that Terri mentioned or even thought about a feeding tube vs. a ventilator when making any kind of statements about not wanting to live on life support?

I dunno, but I'm pretty damn sure she wouldn't say..."yeah, starving to death is fine" *shudder* I can't imagine a worse fate than starving to death.

[Sugar]

Originally Posted by amber

I dunno, but I'm pretty damn sure she wouldn't say..."yeah, starving to death is fine" *shudder* I can't imagine a worse fate than starving to death.

Oh...I can...

I keep coming back to the irony that it was Terri's eating disorder that started all this in the first place...stranger than fiction, I tell ya...

[Sugar]

Originally Posted by dissention

But they're both forms of life support. The feeding tube keeps her alive like a ventilator would keep someone else alive. They have no problems turning off ventilators, what's the difference when it comes to a feeding tube?

From a purely logical point of view, I think I'm with Diss on this one.

We all imagine the horror of it taking her up to three weeks to die. And I can't imagine what it will be like for her parents to visit her in those final three week, But if she requires mechanical assistance to sustain her life, it's life support, yes?

[amber]

Originally Posted by Sugar

From a purely logical point of view, I think I'm with Diss on this one.

We all imagine the horror of it taking her up to three weeks to die. And I can't imagine what it will be like for her parents to visit her in those final three week, But if she requires mechanical assistance to sustain her life, it's life support, yes?

So, you don't see any difference if it takes her a few minutes to expire or waste away over weeks? Am i getting your meaning right?

[Sugar]

Originally Posted by amber

So, you don't see any difference if it takes her a few minutes to expire or waste away over weeks? Am i getting your meaning right?

Well sure there's a difference; one takes a few minutes and one takes a couple weeks...But frankly I'm not sure what the question is...is this about Terri not wanting to be kept alive by artificial means? It seems like both a ventilator and a feeding tube fit that definition.

[Mad4stevie]

Originally Posted by Sugar

From a purely logical point of view, I think I'm with Diss on this one.

We all imagine the horror of it taking her up to three weeks to die. And I can't imagine what it will be like for her parents to visit her in those final three week, But if she requires mechanical assistance to sustain her life, it's life support, yes?

But alot of bioethicists make a distinction between a ventilator and a feeding tube.

What troubles me is whether or not when Terri allegedly made these statements about not wanting life support, did she really mean that to include a feeding tube? I submit that most people, other than those in the medical community, usually equate life support with a ventilator. How many people would say, "Well, if I can't swallow food, I don't want to live"? Not me.

And remember, this woman isn't brain dead, just brain damaged.

[Mad4stevie]

Originally Posted by Sugar

Well sure there's a difference; one takes a few minutes and one takes a couple weeks...But frankly I'm not sure what the question is...is this about Terri not wanting to be kept alive by artificial means? It seems like both a ventilator and a feeding tube fit that definition.

In my opinion, we cannot apply our definition of life support to this case. We should apply what Terri meant by life support, if something more than a general definition can be established.

[amber]

Originally Posted by Sugar

Well sure there's a difference; one takes a few minutes and one takes a couple weeks...But frankly I'm not sure what the question is...is this about Terri not wanting to be kept alive by artificial means? It seems like both a ventilator and a feeding tube fit that definition.

oh, ok. they are both artificial means, but I think it's stretching to compare them. I mean, C'mon....

[ShangriLaTroubl]

If Terri is in a PVS, which she is..then she wouldn't feel or know the "starvation" The starvation thing is something some politicans and her family have used to prove a point, when in fact they know that she wont be lying there knowing she's starving, have any pain or anything...she is brain dead...she does not know what is going on nor will she feel anything

Chris

[heyjupiter678]

Originally Posted by Mad4stevie

In my opinion, we cannot apply our definition of life support to this case. We should apply what Terri meant by life support, if something more than a general definition can be established.

I don't see people quibbling over definitions when discussing this type of situation. It's whether or not Terri would want to be kept alive in the condition that she is in, with no hope of improvement. The courts and her husband say she wouldn't.

[Mad4stevie]

Did anyone see the interview with the nurse who treated Terri back in the late 1990's? She said that Terri would respond to visitors and that Michael Schiavo would routinely ask "Is the bitch dead yet?" Where the hell was this woman during the initial litigation process?

[Mad4stevie]

Originally Posted by ShangriLaTroubl

If Terri is in a PVS, which she is..then she wouldn't feel or know the "starvation" The starvation thing is something some politicans and her family have used to prove a point, when in fact they know that she wont be lying there knowing she's starving, have any pain or anything...she is brain dead...she does not know what is going on nor will she feel anything

Chris

She is not brain dead. She is brain damaged. There is a big difference.