|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2005 1:17 am
So, as most of you heard, Terri Shiavo died today somewhere around this morning. Her husband fought to have the feeding tube removed from her on the argument that she "has the right to die."
So, what are your views on this? Do people have the right to die? Should we keep people in veggie states alive?
(If I ever become a veggie, or even paralyzed from the neck down, just pull the plug. Please)
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2005 1:40 am
Tigress Dawn So, what are your views on this? Do people have the right to die? Should we keep people in veggie states alive?
(If I ever become a veggie, or even paralyzed from the neck down, just pull the plug. Please) This raises interesting questions. I mean, I not only have rights concerning myself, but so too does my family. I may be a legal adult, but, still, my family has the right to keep me around if they want me, just as I have the right to stay with them if I want (assuming they are willing to keep me around). On the issue of whether I have the right to die, well, it depends on who has the most control over my body. By control, I mean who makes the decisions, meaning, do I make my own decisions about everything, or do I let some other person make my decisions. When it all comes down to it, I always make my own decisions, there is never a time when I do not make my own decisions. Thus, I have the right to decide when I want to die. (I also agree with you, if I ever became a vegetable or was paralyzed with no chance to return to my normal self, or at least some sort of shadow similar to my old walking, non-senile self, then I do not want life support.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A Murder of Angels Captain
|
Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2005 1:45 am
My feelings on this issue are clear cut. My feelings on this specific case are split.
I believe that as long as they are mentally stable, the person's parents should have the first and foremost say in what to do. That is, unless the person had a Living Will that states otherwise. I believe that a spouse shouldn't have say unless the parents are dead or the person gave consent before entering that state.
I also believe that if a person is COMPLETLEY incapable of making a recovery, the plug should be pulled.
In many non-Christian religions, they believe that the feeding tube should never have been inserted in the first place, because of the fact that this is tampering with the process of death. And this tampering is not only with the process of death for the person in question, but for all who will end up grieving that person. Death is often times more painful when it's long and drawn out, and knowing that someone's brain is literally dead is not going to put anyone at ease.
If someone's brain is dead, sorry to say it, but that person is already dead. Terri died 15 years ago. The flesh-avatar-shell she inhabited continued to function, even though she had long since moved on.
So as far as this case goes, the only thing I have to say is, they should have stopped feeding the corpse a long time ago.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2005 3:24 am
As for me;
I wouldn't have even known about it if not for Gaia.
Seriously what happened?
Suddenly one day, about 50 threads about something that seems relatively unimportant show up.
Was there, like, huge widespread news coverage and discussions about this in the US, or what?
(And- okay, someone died. This isn't exactly a rare thing. People die at least every couple seconds...)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2005 9:13 am
Contingent As for me; I wouldn't have even known about it if not for Gaia. Seriously what happened? Suddenly one day, about 50 threads about something that seems relatively unimportant show up. Was there, like, huge widespread news coverage and discussions about this in the US, or what? (And- okay, someone died. This isn't exactly a rare thing. People die at least every couple seconds...) There was a huge dispute about this up in the U.S. Here, check this, this, and this out, for more information.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 02, 2005 10:00 pm
A Murder of Angels My feelings on this issue are clear cut. My feelings on this specific case are split. I believe that as long as they are mentally stable, the person's parents should have the first and foremost say in what to do. That is, unless the person had a Living Will that states otherwise. I believe that a spouse shouldn't have say unless the parents are dead or the person gave consent before entering that state. I also believe that if a person is COMPLETLEY incapable of making a recovery, the plug should be pulled. In many non-Christian religions, they believe that the feeding tube should never have been inserted in the first place, because of the fact that this is tampering with the process of death. And this tampering is not only with the process of death for the person in question, but for all who will end up grieving that person. Death is often times more painful when it's long and drawn out, and knowing that someone's brain is literally dead is not going to put anyone at ease. If someone's brain is dead, sorry to say it, but that person is already dead. Terri died 15 years ago. The flesh-avatar-shell she inhabited continued to function, even though she had long since moved on. So as far as this case goes, the only thing I have to say is, they should have stopped feeding the corpse a long time ago. i strongly disagree. i am glad for the care my parents have given me, but when i marry i want him to be able to make such decisions if necessary, not them. i never chose my parents, but i will be choosing my spouse, and he is more likely to do what i would have chosen if i could. they are just likely to do what they think is "for my own good", as if i were still a child. no thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A Murder of Angels Captain
|
Posted: Sat Apr 02, 2005 10:16 pm
chessiejo A Murder of Angels My feelings on this issue are clear cut. My feelings on this specific case are split. I believe that as long as they are mentally stable, the person's parents should have the first and foremost say in what to do. That is, unless the person had a Living Will that states otherwise. I believe that a spouse shouldn't have say unless the parents are dead or the person gave consent before entering that state. I also believe that if a person is COMPLETLEY incapable of making a recovery, the plug should be pulled. In many non-Christian religions, they believe that the feeding tube should never have been inserted in the first place, because of the fact that this is tampering with the process of death. And this tampering is not only with the process of death for the person in question, but for all who will end up grieving that person. Death is often times more painful when it's long and drawn out, and knowing that someone's brain is literally dead is not going to put anyone at ease. If someone's brain is dead, sorry to say it, but that person is already dead. Terri died 15 years ago. The flesh-avatar-shell she inhabited continued to function, even though she had long since moved on. So as far as this case goes, the only thing I have to say is, they should have stopped feeding the corpse a long time ago. i strongly disagree. i am glad for the care my parents have given me, but when i marry i want him to be able to make such decisions if necessary, not them. i never chose my parents, but i will be choosing my spouse, and he is more likely to do what i would have chosen if i could. they are just likely to do what they think is "for my own good", as if i were still a child. no thank you. That's why I mentioned a Living Will. It works the same as a Will would upon death, but takes effect when the person it is for becomes incapable of making their own decisions from that point on. There's two types of Living Wills: A verbal one, which is simply stating in one way or another that you wish it that way, and a contract or legal one, which you have to have a lawyer or court create for you. The verbal version is very hard to prove in court, but if it can't be disputed, it should go in favour of the person's wishes. In fact, simply by saying what you just said, you created a living will for yourself that your husband should have say over you in that case. The other kind, the legal kind, will almost always hold up in court. It's not as difficult to create one as you'd think, either. If I'm not mistaken, a couple can create one just like what you were speaking of, before they get married, during their pre-nuptuals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 24, 2005 4:09 pm
[ Message temporarily off-line ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2005 3:11 pm
i feel so bad for her. her life was ruined because of just one accident.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 8:13 pm
I saw Terri Shiavo on the television and I could tell by looking at her she wasn'e a complete vegatable. The thing is, if people become marked as responsive, hospitals must give them therapy. That takes money and effort. They don't care that it is the right thing to do. The Bible says to help the poor and needy. I do my best to help my mom, who is marked as non-responsive in the hospital despite the fact that she cries when we are not there with her and smiles when I tell her a joke. If someone is a complete vegatable, I don't know what to do, but family members should make a great effort to learn things on their own. Most hospitals are like this: If we can't get them to kill the patient, we'll trick them into letting us warehouse the patient. Sound overdramatiuc? 2 years ago I would have thought so,too. And, by the way, warehousing means exactly as it sounds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 8:42 pm
I don't know what should have happened. All I know is that I have no right to make this decision, and neither do most other people. I don't think that this should have been made into the huge national debate that it became.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 08, 2005 2:19 pm
SyphaBelnades I don't know what should have happened. All I know is that I have no right to make this decision, and neither do most other people. I don't think that this should have been made into the huge national debate that it became. You're right. It's up to the family to decide. There are mantles of authority in the Bible. Husband is first, then father. But if the husband goes against God's law, then the husband must be told he is wrong. Help the poor and needy, that's what the Bible says(and maybe every other book says in some other way).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2005 5:01 pm
Mercution I saw Terri Shiavo on the television and I could tell by looking at her she wasn'e a complete vegatable. The thing is, if people become marked as responsive, hospitals must give them therapy. That takes money and effort. They don't care that it is the right thing to do. The Bible says to help the poor and needy. I do my best to help my mom, who is marked as non-responsive in the hospital despite the fact that she cries when we are not there with her and smiles when I tell her a joke. If someone is a complete vegatable, I don't know what to do, but family members should make a great effort to learn things on their own. Most hospitals are like this: If we can't get them to kill the patient, we'll trick them into letting us warehouse the patient. Sound overdramatiuc? 2 years ago I would have thought so,too. And, by the way, warehousing means exactly as it sounds. here is something though: people REFLEXIVE look into people's eyes and follow them contrary to popular beleif. babies born without brains do it too. just because Terri Shiavo looked like she was watching people that spoke doesn't mean there is understanding and cognition. cats and dogs can do that same thing, that doesn't mean they understand or even think about what the sounds coming out of my mouth mean. as for your mother's case, i think that is different. Terri at this late stage never showed emotional affect and the majority of her brain was missing. i have to ask you about why would a hospital WANT to kill a patient or warehouse one? that doesn't make any sense to me. the hospital does get money for "warehousing" but it'd probably get more moeny from treating new patients. i don't see how it'd be in hospital's interested to keep people alive and warehousing them. and i have a friend that was a in presistant vegitative state and came out of it healthy and happy. i also know someone whose son was in a presistant vegitative state and did all the things Terri could do, but was finally convinced that no one was home in that body. doctors advise based off of statics of what has happened in the past. they don't try to trick someone into anything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 13, 2005 4:30 pm
Kalorn Mercution I saw Terri Shiavo on the television and I could tell by looking at her she wasn'e a complete vegatable. The thing is, if people become marked as responsive, hospitals must give them therapy. That takes money and effort. They don't care that it is the right thing to do. The Bible says to help the poor and needy. I do my best to help my mom, who is marked as non-responsive in the hospital despite the fact that she cries when we are not there with her and smiles when I tell her a joke. If someone is a complete vegatable, I don't know what to do, but family members should make a great effort to learn things on their own. Most hospitals are like this: If we can't get them to kill the patient, we'll trick them into letting us warehouse the patient. Sound overdramatiuc? 2 years ago I would have thought so,too. And, by the way, warehousing means exactly as it sounds. here is something though: people REFLEXIVE look into people's eyes and follow them contrary to popular beleif. babies born without brains do it too. just because Terri Shiavo looked like she was watching people that spoke doesn't mean there is understanding and cognition. cats and dogs can do that same thing, that doesn't mean they understand or even think about what the sounds coming out of my mouth mean. as for your mother's case, i think that is different. Terri at this late stage never showed emotional affect and the majority of her brain was missing. i have to ask you about why would a hospital WANT to kill a patient or warehouse one? that doesn't make any sense to me. the hospital does get money for "warehousing" but it'd probably get more moeny from treating new patients. i don't see how it'd be in hospital's interested to keep people alive and warehousing them. and i have a friend that was a in presistant vegitative state and came out of it healthy and happy. i also know someone whose son was in a presistant vegitative state and did all the things Terri could do, but was finally convinced that no one was home in that body. doctors advise based off of statics of what has happened in the past. they don't try to trick someone into anything. Wanna know how she got that way? People get disheartened and give up if people give up on them. Just because they are lying in a hospital bed doesn't mean their now human. My dad has to constantly tell my mom not to give up because so much of our family doesn't support us anymore. Not all hosptals are bad, but it IS becoming a fad. There are about ten hospitals in the central valley that I know do this. I don't to name any because some people might get mad. (cough, Mercy Merced, cough, Kaiser, cough cough) It isn't just about the money. It makes it easier for the hospital to kill or warehouse. This society, if you haven't noticed, is all about help if it won't be a burden at all to me. That's what a lot of hospitals do. Harsh? Again, I'm sorry, but people need to notice these things before they get out of hand. They've gotten way out of hand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 13, 2005 6:56 pm
Mercution Wanna know how she got that way? People get disheartened and give up if people give up on them. Just because they are lying in a hospital bed doesn't mean their now human. My dad has to constantly tell my mom not to give up because so much of our family doesn't support us anymore. Not all hosptals are bad, but it IS becoming a fad. There are about ten hospitals in the central valley that I know do this. I don't to name any because some people might get mad. (cough, Mercy Merced, cough, Kaiser, cough cough) It isn't just about the money. It makes it easier for the hospital to kill or warehouse. This society, if you haven't noticed, is all about help if it won't be a burden at all to me. That's what a lot of hospitals do. Harsh? Again, I'm sorry, but people need to notice these things before they get out of hand. They've gotten way out of hand. I haven't noticed any hospitals doing this in my area, then again, I don't look that closely at them. Most of the hospitals I go to, want to get the person treated as quickly as possible so they can move on to the next person. As for what you are saying, I'm not so sure it is a "I'll help as long as you are no burden to me" philosophy; it appears to be more of a "I'll help if you will have a significant chance of functioning in society" philosophy. There's not much of a difference, but there is some. What I would like to know is, why should people help those who can perform no valueble function in society? If I am going to sit in a hospital and suck up my families money - having no chance, or not a significant chance of ever being able to perform valueble functions in society, should I be there? Why? Should I simply exist just to exist, or should I merely exist only when I can truly live?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
