You probably heard of the Terri Schiavo case.
A disabled women who's suffering from brain damage has to be fed artificially by means of a tube.
Her husband asked a judge to remove the tube so she would die.
The tube was removed by court order.
On request of her parents and brother(s) and or sister(s) a state law was passed. A law that gave the governor the authority to overrule
this court decision.
The tube was reinstalled a few days ago.
Now there is a legal and media fight going on between the husband and her family whether it is ok to let her die or to let her live ...
What are your thoughts about this case ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeFor my own part I'd agree with SirLoseALot - I'd rather die than live in a vegetative state on life support.
You probably heard of the Terri Schiavo case.
A disabled women who's suffering from brain damage has to be fed artificially by means of a tube.
Her husband asked a judge to remove the tube so she would die.
The tube was removed by court order.
On request of her parents and brother(s) and or sister(s) a state law was passed. A law that ga ...[text shortened]... r it is ok to let her die or to let her live ...
What are your thoughts about this case ?
However, I would not want to take sides in any particular case of dispute, because I think that the only people who could legitimately have a firm opinion in the matter are the people who knew her, and could thus speculate on what her own view on the matter would have been, should she be in a possition to make the desicion herself.
I think cases like this underline the importance of letting your family and loved ones know clearly and unambiquously what you'd want if you were in that situation. Its an easy thing to do, and it can spare so much heartake and trauma on the people who actually have to decide whether to pull the plug, should you ever end up like that.
-Jarno
If I were in that situation I'm sure that I wanted to live and I hope I do not fall in the hands of such people like her husband who wants to let her die, because he thinks that that is the thing she wanted.
The husband has a new girlfriend and two children with that same girlfriend.
He has a major interest in letting her die. He can go on with his life after his legal wife has died. He certainly cannot be the one to make any decision about her at all. In my opinion he has lost that right.
Originally posted by ivanhoeI didn't know about all that,never heard about the case.
If I were in that situation I'm sure that I wanted to live and I hope I do not fall in the hands of such people like her husband who wants to let her die, because he thinks that that is the thing she wanted.
The husband has a new girlfriend and two children with that same girlfriend.
He has a major interest in letting her die. He can go on with his lif ...[text shortened]... nnot be the one to make any decision about her at all. In my opinion he has lost that right.
But still,even if he has 10 new girlfriends,the wife remains a vegetable.
And are you really so sure you would like to live on?For all we know she can be in great pain.
I agree with phyrro,had she said to her how she felt about this kind of thing there would have been no problem.My family and friends know how I fell about it,I don't wanna end up like a veggie(not the clan).I can only hope,should it happen,that they have the courage to pull the plug.
The experts do not agree on the fact in what situation this patient is.
There are experts who say that she is not a veggie and that she responds to her family members especially her mother. Furthermore experts say that she is not in any pain at all.
About telling the family: The fact is that she has not done so and they have to deal with that whether they like it or not.
The husband has in fact left his wife, because he started a new relationship to replace the relationship with his wife. That's why I say that he, in my opinion, has lost his right to make any decision about his wife at all. The second reason to deny him the right to decide is that he has a major interest in the case in a way that, in my opinion,
is unacceptable. He can marry again and he can pay the bills when he receives his wife's posessions after she dies. He is in a tricky position to make decisions, because one of the decisions he can make is very profitable for him in more than one way ... The other decision lays a great burden on him also in more than one way .......
Well, it's hardly fair to blame the husband for having a "new" girlfriend. His wife has been on a feeding tube for 13 years. Additionally, he reported over a decade ago (prior to beginning another relationship) that his wife said flat out she would not want to be kept alive as a vegetable and a burden to her family. I think the most significant moral issue here is whether the patient would have preferred to be kept alive under these circumstances. Of course, in order to determine that, we would have to determine just what her current mental state is like. Although she reacts to stimuli, is she conscious? Is she capable of pleasure and pain...what about something more complex like joy? Is she merely conscious but not self-aware, i.e., is there any internal concept of self? The capacity to have various experiences and our conceptions of who we are determine, to a large extent, the degree to which we see our lives as worth living. In the absence of a living will explicitly stating the conditions under which a patient does not want to be kept alive we are obligated to determine whether the life of a patient is one they would find worth living. We can't do that until we know what it is currently like to be Terri Schiavo.
I'm not blaming the husband for having a girlfriend. I'm stating that he lost his right to make decisions because he took a girlfriend to replace his wife. He has in fact left her.
The fact is that the woman in question has not made a written statement. You cannot make a decision to end her life because somebody or even her husband, who has a very tricky position, says that she has stated so. Somebody can come along and state the opposite and that has happened, the family says that she would like to live in such a situation.
You state that we have a right to decide whether a life is worth living yes or no and you mention a few criteria. Do we have that right ? I know that you think we do. You even hold the opinion that we have a right to take someone's life. I know that that is your opinion. I do not think that we have that right.
Life has value in itself. We are not the ones to decide whether life has value yes or no.
I'm even sure that you will support the husband in his decision no matter what the circumstances are, because that will bring about in due time your political goals as a Freethinker ... If the family would win this media battle wouln't you consider that to be a setback in realising your political ideas ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeAgain, Ivanhoe, I find it stunning how you fail to understand even a simple point, and attribute to me claims I did not make. I didn't say that we should try to determine whether a life was worth living. I said that we should try to determine whether the patient (Terri Shiavo, in this case) would find her current life one worth living. The idea is to take what we (in this case, family and friends) know about what Terri herself thought was valuable, what she believed made her life worth living, and then try to puzzle out what she would want us to do. If, for instance, Terri valued primarily her autonomy, dignity, capacity to think, capacity for intimate and reciprocal relationships, etc., then perhaps she would prefer not to be kept alive as a mere shadow (if that) of her former self. If she thought that all life was sacred and humans never had the right to take their own life or that of another, then she would want to be kept alive regardless of her diminished capacities. I think we should make our decision on the basis of what the patient herself valued, not on the basis of considerations that do not take her interests into account.
I'm not blaming the husband for having a girlfriend. I'm stating that he lost his right to make decisions because he took a girlfriend to replace his wife. He has in fact left her.
You state that we have a right to decide whether a lif ...[text shortened]... onsider that to be a setback in realising your political ideas ?
And please, try to stay on the topic. You know neither my ethical viewpoint nor my political viewpoint. In any case, I have no desire to discuss either with you, as you seem to not have the patience to pay attention to what people actually write in their posts.
Originally posted by bbarri agree with you on this. It is the persons, patients, wishes that are paramount. However the question is could you ever really, without any doubt, knw what they were if all you had was family and friends to give statements.
Again, Ivanhoe, I find it stunning how you fail to understand even a simple point, and attribute to me claims I did not make. I didn't say that we should try to determine whether a life was worth living. I said that we should try to determine whether the patient (Terri Shiavo, in this case) would find her current life one worth living. The idea is to take w ...[text shortened]... self valued, not on the basis of considerations that do not take her interests into account.
Originally posted by trekkieNo, you will never be certain. But you will never be certain even if someone makes out a living will. Just because someone wrote down that they didn't want to be kept alive under particular circumstances doesn't preclude their views having changed between the time they made out the will and the time they, say, get hit by a bus, have a stroke, etc. Just like in most situations we have to do the best we can, and try to act morally.
i agree with you on this. It is the persons, patients, wishes that are paramount. However the question is could you ever really, without any doubt, knw what they were if all you had was family and friends to give statements.
Originally posted by bbarr"I said that we should try to determine whether the patient would find her current life one worth living" bbarr
Again, Ivanhoe, I find it stunning how you fail to understand even a simple point, and attribute to me claims I did not make. I didn't say that we should try to determine whether a life was worth living. I said that we should try to determine whether the patient (Terri Shiavo, in this case) would find her current life one worth living. The idea is to take w ...[text shortened]... seem to not have the patience to pay attention to what people actually write in their posts.
Yes, that's exactly what you said. That does imply that we (humans) have the right to decide whether a life has value yes or no and in case it has no value in our eyes we can end it !!
That's what it means. In case you do not agree with me on that, then please explain to me what you are trying to say about life having value in itself yes or no.
I guess I can say that I studied the way Freethinkers discuss the matters of euthanasia, because we went through that in my country, the Netherlands. This case that we are discussing in this thread, is about a woman who is maybe comatose or maybe not 100 % comatose, the experts do not agree on the situation this woman is in. Now bbarr is discussing this case the same way Dutch Freethinkers did. The fact that they first stated that only people who were able to ask for euthanasia or made a living will, a written statement, could get euthanasia, was simply forgotten. The voluntary part of getting euthanasia was swept aside, because this was not fair towards people who had not the opportunity to write one during their lifetime. The very important and crucial criterium of the unbearable suffering, the reason for the freethinkers to even start the euthanasia debate was also swept aside. When you asked the Freethinkers about that change in their ideas, they just said that things had changed and they wanted to keep track with the "time spirit" and they went on stating that everything had to be discussed very carefully (a key word in the whole discussion) and we had to act in a morally correct way. That way was to determine what the patient would have wanted, if he or she would have been able etc. etc. and we did not have to worry about a slippery slope, because that did not exist only in the minds of people who were against progress in this field. Well, the cases they brought into the media for publicity in order to reach their political goals (there was and still is a more or less silent convenant between liberal politicians and journalists) they made sure that they could make people believe that the patients in question would have wanted this to happen (euthanasia) in their current health situation.Of course all the people involved, patient and family were members of the Freethinker movement. They brought forward all kind of criteria, the one more beautiful and more morally correct than the other, but all these criteria are just a bag full of hot air. They do not mean a thing because when they arrive at their next stage of realising their political goal, they have to think of something else. In case of young children who are born severely handicapped, they cannot use the criteria bbarr has described here, simply because a baby does not have any ideas about a lot of things and has very few relations. Now what's the secret to be able to give that baby the same treatment (euthanasia) ? (Equality for all is one of their political ideals) The secret is of course that you cannot deny the baby this "right". That would be a form of injustice (Justice is one of their other political ideals). What you give to adults you must also give to children and those who protested were swept aside as monsters without love for their fellow human beings or stupid people who just could not understand their philosophical ideas or treated the way I am treated by bbarr ....... The ones who reminded the Freethinkers of the Slippery Slope Argument again got the answer that that only existed in the minds of those who were against this modernisation of our society, they simply were conservative people They were even called fundamentalists, to whom you do not have to pay any attention ... Now what is that political goal they want to realise ? The ultimate political goal of the Freethinkers is to bring about a Right to Die for all or if you like a right for all to commit suicide. They (we all) can execute that right any moment we want and under all circumstances. We will have the right to ask a doctor to help us to commit suicide. The doctor has a right to refuse but you have the right to ask another doctor. In the Netherlands there are allready "doctors" who specialise in executing euthanasia. This situation is the ultimate result of the teachings of the Freethinkers that the human subject is autonomous and that there is no moral entity that he has to obey beside himself ...
Originally posted by bbarrYes, that is what i was talking about without saying it in so many words. IN other words there is NO answer to avoid these difficult situations.
No, you will never be certain. But you will never be certain even if someone makes out a living will. Just because someone wrote down that they didn't want to be kept alive under particular circumstances doesn't preclude their views having changed between the time they made out the will and the time they, say, get hit by a bus, have a stroke, etc. Just like in most situations we have to do the best we can, and try to act morally.