Terri Schiavo: Please explain something to me... - Page 8

Mad4stevie · #**106** 03-23-2005, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by markolas

The woman's brain has turned to mush. She has no sense of being, much less the ability to feel pain. Terri is no more alive than a chicken flopping around after you cut its head off.

I'm sorry to sound so cold, but people need to face reality here. She is dead, and has been for a long time.

This woman is NOT brain dead! She is brain damaged. To use your logic, anyone will a severe physical and/or mental impairment should be considered "dead". That is scary logic to me.

markolas · #**107** 03-23-2005, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mad4stevie

This woman is NOT brain dead!

She's beyond brain dead.

SuzeQuze · #**108** 03-23-2005, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by markolas

She's beyond brain dead.

Technically she isn't because her breathing and heart beat are not regulated by a machine. But all of the sentient parts of her brain are gone and she is left with just the rudimentary brain stem, which regulates breathing and heartbeat. Her "mind" is dead but her brain isn't.

skcin · #**109** 03-23-2005, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mad4stevie

This woman is NOT brain dead! She is brain damaged. To use your logic, anyone will a severe physical and/or mental impairment should be considered "dead". That is scary logic to me.

Exactly. See my earlier post, post # - forget it, I don't know where the hell it is. If someone is born impaired, should we not feed them?

I do think she has the right to die, but starving to death is not humane. I'm so confused...

Mad4stevie · #**110** 03-23-2005, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skcin

Exactly. See my earlier post, post # - forget it, I don't know where the hell it is. If someone is born impaired, should we not feed them?

I do think she has the right to die, but starving to death is not humane. I'm so confused...

I agree with you, Paula. And you have a bit more education and experience in health care than alot of us do.

Mad4stevie · #**111** 03-23-2005, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

Technically she isn't because her breathing and heart beat are not regulated by a machine. But all of the sentient parts of her brain are gone and she is left with just the rudimentary brain stem, which regulates breathing and heartbeat. Her "mind" is dead but her brain isn't.

Does that mean that brain death = involuntary functions that need to be performed by machine? If so, does that mean that those on dialysis are brain dead because they need a machine to substitute for their ailing kidneys?

SuzeQuze · #**112** 03-23-2005, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skcin

Exactly. See my earlier post, post # - forget it, I don't know where the hell it is. If someone is born impaired, should we not feed them?

I do think she has the right to die, but starving to death is not humane. I'm so confused...

Well, it would be inhumane if she suffered but she won't suffer because she has no awareness of what's happening.

Mad4stevie · #**113** 03-23-2005, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

Well, it would be inhumane if she suffered but she won't suffer because she has no awareness of what's happening.

This is an interesting point, because the Supreme Court has found that it is cruel and unusual punishment to execute a mentally ill person because they have no awareness that they are being executed.

The Tower · #**114** 03-23-2005, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mad4stevie

This is an interesting point, because the Supreme Court has found that it is cruel and unusual punishment to execute a mentally ill person because they have no awareness that they are being executed.

The Supreme Court did not base that ruling on that whether or not they were aware that they are being executed. They based that ruling on the fact the the mentally retarded are not culpable when it comes to committing crimes- i.e., they are not wise enough to be able to tell right from wrong.

Don't confuse the issues.

skcin · #**115** 03-23-2005, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

Well, it would be inhumane if she suffered but she won't suffer because she has no awareness of what's happening.

I can't believe that 100%. I just can't. Sorry. Just because she can't communicate does not mean she does not know what's going on. Or feel pain. Nobody can be absolutely sure, the brain is an amazing organ & we know so little about it.

SuzeQuze · #**116** 03-23-2005, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mad4stevie

This is an interesting point, because the Supreme Court has found that it is cruel and unusual punishment to execute a mentally ill person because they have no awareness that they are being executed.

But they can feed themselves. Is it natural to shove a tube in someone's throat to feed them? I wouldn't want to "live" that way.

This is not an execution.

Mad4stevie · #**117** 03-23-2005, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Tower

The Supreme Court did not base that ruling on that whether or not they were aware that they are being executed. They based that ruling on the fact the the mentally retarded are not culpable when it comes to committing crimes- i.e., they are not wise enough to be able to tell right from wrong.

Don't confuse the issues.

I'm not confusing that case. I am not speaking of the mentally retarded. I am speaking of the mentally ill. They are two different cases with two very different issues.

SuzeQuze · #**118** 03-23-2005, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skcin

I can't believe that 100%. I just can't. Sorry. Just because she can't communicate does not mean she does not know what's going on. Or feel pain. Nobody can be absolutely sure, the brain is an amazing organ & we know so little about it.

Well, if she is aware then it would be even worse keeping her alive and trapped like that when she said she would never want to live that way. But I don't believe that she's aware and I have a background in biology. Scientists and doctors would agree that she isn't aware but you're right, they're only 99.9% sure.

Mad4stevie · #**119** 03-23-2005, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

But they can feed themselves. Is it natural to shove a tube in someone's throat to feed them? I wouldn't want to "live" that way.

This is not an execution.

First of all, Terri did not have a tube in her throat. She had one inserted into her stomach. I believe this was how Christopher Reeve was fed as well.

My point in bringing up the execution issue is this: if the court has already determined that it is cruel and unusual to put to death someone who is not aware that they are dying because they are mentally ill, how is it that we can say it is fine to starve this woman because she is brain damaged and is therefore unaware of what is being done to her?

Mad4stevie · #**120** 03-23-2005, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

Well, if she is aware then it would be even worse keeping her alive and trapped like that when she said she would never want to live that way. But I don't believe that she's aware and I have a background in biology. Scientists and doctors would agree that she isn't aware but you're right, they're only 99.9% sure.

If you have a background in biology, maybe you could help us by looking at this and explaning it to us:

Terri's Brain Scan