![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lagilmanso, if Jeb Bush goes against the local judge who refused permission to gain 'custody' of Terry Schiavo, and has her moved to a hospital and her feeding tube reinserted... is this an abuse of executive power to execute moral judgement, or no?
In Jeb's favor, he seems to be saying "I can't do that, legally" in his most recent press conference. I'm cynic enough to wonder how long that will last.
For the record? If I'm in a coma for fifteen years? If my cerebellum ends up filled with spinal fluid, as seems to have occured? Hand my organs over to folk who can use 'em, and kick anyone who tries to interfere. Hard.
NOTE: BECAUSE OF THE SENSITIVE NATURE OF THIS DISCUSSION, ANYONE WHO POSTS WITHOUT IDENTIFYING THEMSELVES WILL HAVE THEIR POST DELETED. IF YOU FEEL STRONGLY ENOUGH TO SAY IT, YOU SHOULD FEEL STRONGLY ENOUGH TO STAND BY IT.
In Jeb's favor, he seems to be saying "I can't do that, legally" in his most recent press conference. I'm cynic enough to wonder how long that will last.
For the record? If I'm in a coma for fifteen years? If my cerebellum ends up filled with spinal fluid, as seems to have occured? Hand my organs over to folk who can use 'em, and kick anyone who tries to interfere. Hard.
NOTE: BECAUSE OF THE SENSITIVE NATURE OF THIS DISCUSSION, ANYONE WHO POSTS WITHOUT IDENTIFYING THEMSELVES WILL HAVE THEIR POST DELETED. IF YOU FEEL STRONGLY ENOUGH TO SAY IT, YOU SHOULD FEEL STRONGLY ENOUGH TO STAND BY IT.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-03-24 11:51 pm (UTC)But fear not, Jeb won't do anything.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-24 11:53 pm (UTC)But my comment still stands. That's MY choice.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-25 12:25 am (UTC)More in the NYT, here. (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/24/national/24doctor.html?8bl)
no subject
Date: 2005-03-25 12:42 am (UTC)What's the matter with Dr. William M. Hammesfahr (http://www.medforum.com/lifeline/cv/william_m.htm), the neurologist who did this 2002 examination (www.terrisfight.org/documents/Hammesfahrexam.htm). The video along with his statement is on www.terrisfight.org
no subject
Date: 2005-03-25 12:46 am (UTC)There's a simple rule in this journal. Don't be a troll. That goes for everyone.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-25 01:01 am (UTC)If I may offer some further scrutiny (since
no subject
Date: 2005-03-25 01:08 am (UTC)I have let my passions run away with me a bit on this issue. Both my brother (a university professor and moveon.org type) and my father-in-law (a Catholic deacon with a masters in special needs education) either work or have worked with severely handicapped people on a daily basis, and some of their passion has rubbed off on me. All three of us think she's just horribly handicapped, not a vegetable, though of the three of us, I'm the only one without any experience or qualifications. Though they're both good at dealing with me, handicapped with a big, and poorly-controlled, mouth.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-25 01:25 am (UTC)Who gets to make the final decision about continuing the so-called heroic efforts to keep her alive? Who decides what she really would have wanted?
And, more to my original point in the original post, does the government have any right to interfere in personal choices of that sort?
(c.f. the case of the baby in... Texas, yes? Where the hospital was given the right to turn off the machinery over the wishes of the parents.)
I don't want the government deciding, based on the current sitting morality of the moment, to determine what we as individuals may or may not do with our bodies. That begins with conception, through sexual activity, all the way to death.
Person A says abortion s a sin. Person B says it's occasionally a painful necessity. Person C says "not for me, but I can't judge."
Person A says "I want every effort expended to keep me alive, so long as there's hope and maybe even after, because isn't there always hope? Person B signs a DNR and expects it to be followed. Person C can't decide and decides to roll the dice.
IMO? They're all valid personal choices. Let this be a wake-up call for us all to think about it -- and make our choices clear. And then tell the government to butt the hell out.
This isn't an executive decision. It's not a judicial decision, as the supreme court, I think, haa made pretty clear. It's a personal decision.
/gets off soapbox and goes to get a drink
no subject
Date: 2005-03-25 03:54 am (UTC)The Supreme Court has already weighed in on this in a Missouri case in the mid-1980s. They said that Missouri's state law that required a written living will to discontinue treatment was constitutional. The case was about a woman in a coma who had expressed her wishes verbally. The court said the state had the right to set guidelines for what was an acceptable expression of a patient's wishes.
So the bottom line is make sure you know what the law is in your state, designate (in writing) someone to make medical decisions for you if you can't and state your wishes (in writing) about what kind of measures, if any, you want in that situation.
Hopefully, something good will come out of this horrible tragedy (for everyone involved) and people will start writing living wills. I can't believe over 75% of Americans don't have one.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-25 04:44 am (UTC)I think she probably did the right thing.
As for Terri Schaivo, I'd really like to see the maps of brain activity in response to stimuli--that would make a difference, imho. I don't know if she's in a persistant vegetative state or not. I do know that it is not my business, or Congress's, to make that decision if it turns out that she IS in a PVS.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-25 12:31 am (UTC)There are a lot of potential conflicts of interest, on both sides, in hired experts. Bambakidis and Gambone appear to be the most disinterested and impartial parties involved, and they agree, she's not capable of response, and it is persistent vegetative state. (Which, no, is not a coma. A coma offers some hope of recovery. PVS does not.)
Clearly, yes, I do lean towards a view on this, and it's unlikely you and I will agree on the case, but it does no one any favors to claim there's agreement among the examining doctors, or agreement on how to weight the testimony of each of those doctors. There's not, and that complication of the case is an important feature, not something to whitewash with claims of a universal diagnosis or implications of a conspiracy against medical evidence. There is vast, and credible, disagreement on Terri Schiavo's diagnosis.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-25 12:52 am (UTC)When I watch the tapes I get a Groucho Marx type "who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes" when I read that her responses are purely involuntary reflexes out of the forebrain.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-25 01:14 am (UTC)There may be reason to try new tests, I don't know. They've had fifteen years to make a diagnosis, and seem to have been running tests constantly for the last five years; at some stage, there must be a point where new tests would not be more revealing. Fundamentally, though, the job of deciding that point, being responsible for making sense of the medical data, and weighing the conflicting diagnoses is the reason why one next of kin is given decision-making ability. There can be reasonable disagreement with the next of kin's decisions, but short of negligence in that role, there are reasons to respect the role of the next of kin. And the simple existence of disagreement isn't enough to prove negligence on the part of the next of kin - reasonable, caring, intelligent people can disagree on the diagnosis, and the decision of a reasonable, caring, intelligent person is the best that can be expected from someone in the position of next of kin.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-25 01:34 am (UTC)Oh interesting. I just decided to search on this before I posted it. I can't find any reference to the shunt I read about a few days ago.
I'm just downright confused now. And I need to pack to fly 3000 miles for a job interview.
If the point isn't moot on Tuesday when I get back, I'll do a major web crawl on it. If I just read this in a blog, I'm going to be really ticked off at myself for not paying more attention to my sources.
Yeah I think that's a good idea regardless, I used to be a major cynic, when did I stop questioning everything? Maybe when I got old? (Hell, now I'm old!)
no subject
Date: 2005-03-25 12:19 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-03-25 12:23 am (UTC)That's why I'm watching these events so carefully. If the government decides it can and should determine what's acceptable, then a living will won't be worth damn-all except to the lawyers fighting it out.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-25 01:46 am (UTC)I am currently (along with my 82-year-old mother) the primary care giver for my dying father. He has a living will and at first my parents thought that would be enough. Then his doctor encouraged him to fill out a POLST form (Physicians Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment) and express his wishes there.
Most recently, we met with a geriatric social worker (something every care giver of an elderly relative should do!) and she sent me off to gather Durable Power of Attorney for Medical Decisions forms. Those have now been signed and notarized.
What we've learned is that it's best to have all three of these items available and make damn sure that whoever's on the Power of Attorney form is someone you know will uphold your wishes.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-25 12:58 pm (UTC)That's the real key to a living will - not so much what you say, as having down in black and white "This person speaks for me." Having Power of Attorney invested in the same person probably helps.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-25 06:10 am (UTC)For several years, I was a primary care-giver in state institutions for the severely handicapped. Every day, I emptied bedpans and combed the hair of women who would never open their eyes again.
In 1974, I was in a head-on car wreck at 50 miles an hour. I didn't die, but was in a coma for months. I don't know exactly how long, because I couldn't see a calendar when I regained consciousness, I was blind. I don't remember if anyone told me the date. While I was in the hospital, my parents were told that I would never recover, that I would be a vegetable, if I survived when they turned off the machines. Not only did I not die, I did regain consciousness and eventually my sight came back, too. In time, I relearned how to walk and speak.
In 1982, I held my son in my arms as he died, probably from starvation, though his primary diagnosis was a neuroblastoma.
I have a profound sense that this is not accidental, that there is some force we would call deity involved in the choices we make, both here and in realms beyond our consciousness. In the past few years, I have come to accept the vast ambiguity of the universe, the hypocrisy of humans. It's not our job to know, it's our job to find out. It's not easy and if lived right, life can open our hearts and minds in surprising ways.
If I had been given a choice to die in 1974 or stay and live through the suicide of my first fiance', the death of my son, three divorces and half a million dollars in child custody lawsuits, would I stay or would I go?
I'd stay. If I hadn't, who would have organized Writer's Weekend? Who would have introduced Paige and hundreds of other fans to their favorite author, Mercedes Lackey? Maybe someone else would have done these things, but of them, I am most proud. I am an artist and my purpose is to bring my vision of a higher good, an awareness of the power in ourselves and our relationships to others, to my fellow human beings.
Karen Junker
no subject
Date: 2005-03-25 07:56 am (UTC)The terror is, could she still be in there somewhere? So far I haven't heard of a single case where the gray matter has regenerated after atrophying. Doctors sincerely believe that people cannot recover from as far as this woman has gone. Her husband must believe that this is what she would have wanted--there's no money left to fight over, it all went for her care, she's been on Medicaid for several years. It would be so easy for him to wash his hands, sign her over to her parents, and walk away--divorce her, even. Could he be doing this out of anger at her family? If so, he's going down in flames, because I have no doubt he will be sued for wrongful death after she dies. Good intentions or not, he's screwed.
The problem with all those pieces of paper is simple--if one family member doesn't want you turned off, doctors often won't do it, for fear of lawsuits. Easier to keep you hooked up, at least until the money runs out.
The biggest hypocrisy I see here is, if the marriage bond is so important, how can we take a woman away from her husband and try to give her back to her parents, so to speak? And what's to stop the legislature or a judge from interfering in ANY family decision that is made?
The bottom line is, it's tragic. the pain of all family members must be unimaginable.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-25 01:29 pm (UTC)On another note: Frankly, I think Jeb Bush is pushing this issue so hard because he's worried that the world will realize his brother is in a Persistant Vegetative State and will insist on pulling Georgie's tube.
Teri
no subject
Date: 2005-03-25 02:16 pm (UTC)Who do you suppose the hospital listened to? Could it have been the one who would have been around to sue?
I plan to have a great big “Do Not Resuscitate” tattooed on my chest.