5 ms·

> "staff at the Pinellas Park hospice facility disconnected the feeding tube on March 18, 2005, and Schiavo died on March 31, 2005." So, they starved her to de

by acchow 8y ago

> "staff at the Pinellas Park hospice facility disconnected the feeding tube on March 18, 2005, and Schiavo died on March 31, 2005." So, they starved her to death over 13 days? How do they know she wasn't experiencing this as torture?

arthurcolle 8y ago
I'm baffled that disconnection of a feeding tube seems like a reasonable way to interrupt life-sustaining processes
- woofyman 8y ago
  Euthanasia is illegal in the US. The only thing you can do is remove artificial means of life support. It’s in humane. People should be able to die with dignity. We treat our pets better.
  - wahern 8y ago
    I don't disagree, but this recent assisted suicide story certainly has added some complexity to the debate: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/mar/17/assisted-dying-euthanasia-netherlands https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/mar/17/assisted-dyi... TL;DR: Assisted suicide approved and performed for woman suffering from depression and psychosis. Actually, it wasn't the first non-terminal assisted suicide. I remember a 2009 story involving a man who decided to die with his wife. The wife had terminal cancer, he was healthy, albeit 80 years old. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2009/jul/14/assisted-suicide-dignitas https://www.theguardian.com/society/2009/jul/14/assisted-sui... That article also discusses another couple suffering from non-terminal but chronic illness and chronic pain. I don't remember reading about that couple at the time.
    - hanniabu 8y ago
      Yeah, but you know what? That's was their choice
      - wahern 8y ago
        Yes. I don't mean to be critical of those decisions. But assisted suicide is often pitched to the public as a compassionate treatment to terminal illness. Being narrowly circumscribed is supposed to minimize the potential for abuse and coercion. So when I say those stories add complexity, I mean to say they create fodder for those opposing assisted suicide.
        mijamo 8y ago
        Not really, you just have to write the law to allow what you think should be allowed. Some countries allow assisted suicide in non critical conditions, some allow it only for critical conditions, and some never allow it. I don't see why it would give any weight to those opposing assisted suicide. And TBH I don't understand what is the problem with assisted suicide for non critical conditions in the first place. People get to chose their life, and should be able to end it if they want to. The only alternative as I see it would be to put on the state the responsibility to make everyone so happy they would never want to die, which does not sound like something those opposing assisted suicide would want either. Why would we force people to live miserable lives?
        jacobush 8y ago
        Please at least try to see the other side of the argument. Or we could replace a large chunk of depression treatment with firing squads and it would be fine your argument above. After all, they wanted to die.
        AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
        You would prefer suicide by cop?
        werbistich 8y ago
        As someone who suffers from depression for almost 20 years I would like to provide some thought: Sometimes if you really just want to die and can not move out of bed, it would be REALLY(!) helpful if you would just be allowed to. If I could just go to my parents or my friends and say "hey, I love you all, but I have enough, I want to die" and if then nobody would be like "oh! you feel that bad? how can we help you? We are there for you" but just accept what I just said "I want to die", make an appointment at a doctor's office, give me some overdose and let me like. Act the same way as if I told them I want to move to another country, talk about it if you need, accept it and accept it as a life choice. If that would be really socially accepted–and I mean really accepted, not just some imaginary accepted by everyone just in order to treat the depressed–then I suspect a lot of depression would go away, because everyone who is depressed and fights to get out of bed everyday would have a real new choice, a real new option that is not looked down upon like "I want to die but everybody I love will be mad or sad". And having real options and choices you are free to take helps a lot if you are depressed. It's the feeling of having a lot of choices but being not allowed/accepted/able to take them that often stops one from finding the strength to fight back.
wahern 8y ago
Because it was repeatedly and conclusively shown at that point that her brain had atrophied to half its size. She was gone. The reason the situation almost devolved into an armed stand-off between the courts and the executive branch is because every judge (Florida and Federal) who looked at the case--that is, those officials presented with all the evidence from both sides--quickly understood the reality; whereas the politicians hundreds and thousands of miles away who hadn't the first clue about the facts had other objectives in mind. The subsequent autopsy confirmed what was already known. But there was never any accountability because by then the media had moved on. Terry Schiavo is not the case to point to when questioning the science and treatment of PVS.
- sandworm101 8y ago
  It was a fight between scientists and non-scientists. The scientists saw the scans of her head that showed a void where there should have been brain. The non-scientists looked at a handful of home movies where here random movements and facial expressions occasionally lined up to make her look aware. Such debate between scientific evaluation and layperson "gut feelings" predate so many of today's debates re climate. It was also a generational fight. Her husband, the normal go-to for medical decisions was on one side, and her parents on the other. The parents wanted control over their daughter. They could not accept the widespread default that, for most all medical/legal matters, spouses trump parents. And this was Florida. So the "rights" of the older generation were given greater play in the courts than would have happened in other states.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - nonbel 8y ago
    >"The scientists saw the scans of her head that showed a void where there should have been brain." People with "no" (very small) brains due to hydrocephalus have been discovered who are successful mathematics students and public servants. So, not sure the scientists are right here. As long as the brain is shrinking slow enough it may not be a huge deal in terms of mental ability. http://mentalfloss.com/article/70204/man-without-brain http://mentalfloss.com/article/70204/man-without-brain https://www.theguardian.com/education/2003/oct/02/research.highereducation1 https://www.theguardian.com/education/2003/oct/02/research.h...
mikeash 8y ago
It doesn’t matter. Starving a bedridden patient to death is a passive activity, and is hence defined as “moral.” In contrast, giving them a morphine overdose so they die quickly and painlessly is an active measure and thus defined as “immoral.”
- HillaryBriss 8y ago
  > giving them a morphine overdose so they die quickly and painfully ? wait. is a morphine overdose painful?
  - JshWright 8y ago
    No, that was surely a typo
    - mikeash 8y ago
      More like a sudden brain malfunction, but yeah.
- sulam 8y ago
  I think you meant "painlessly".
  - mikeash 8y ago
    Uh, yeah, I kinda did. Thanks.
- HillaryBriss 8y ago
  I'm not taking a position on this or trying to argue. I'm truly somewhat confused by it all. I'm not sure I agree with this, as I find it, honestly, rather frightening in practice, but it seems like painkiller administration is a kind of euthanasia loophole, even in places where euthanasia is not legal: Passive euthanasia is the withholding of treatments necessary for the continuance of life. Whether the administration of increasingly necessary, albeit toxic doses of opioid analgesia is regarded as active or passive euthanasia is a matter of moral interpretation, but in order to pacify doctors’ consciences, it is usually regarded as a passive measure. Many people, therefore, regard it as an acceptable facet of good professional practice. https://jramc.bmj.com/content/147/3/367 https://jramc.bmj.com/content/147/3/367

by acchow 8y ago

arthurcolle 8y ago

I'm baffled that disconnection of a feeding tube seems like a reasonable way to interrupt life-sustaining processes

woofyman 8y ago
Euthanasia is illegal in the US. The only thing you can do is remove artificial means of life support. It’s in humane. People should be able to die with dignity. We treat our pets better.
- wahern 8y ago
  I don't disagree, but this recent assisted suicide story certainly has added some complexity to the debate: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/mar/17/assisted-dying-euthanasia-netherlands https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/mar/17/assisted-dyi... TL;DR: Assisted suicide approved and performed for woman suffering from depression and psychosis. Actually, it wasn't the first non-terminal assisted suicide. I remember a 2009 story involving a man who decided to die with his wife. The wife had terminal cancer, he was healthy, albeit 80 years old. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2009/jul/14/assisted-suicide-dignitas https://www.theguardian.com/society/2009/jul/14/assisted-sui... That article also discusses another couple suffering from non-terminal but chronic illness and chronic pain. I don't remember reading about that couple at the time.
  - hanniabu 8y ago
    Yeah, but you know what? That's was their choice
    - wahern 8y ago
      Yes. I don't mean to be critical of those decisions. But assisted suicide is often pitched to the public as a compassionate treatment to terminal illness. Being narrowly circumscribed is supposed to minimize the potential for abuse and coercion. So when I say those stories add complexity, I mean to say they create fodder for those opposing assisted suicide.
      - mijamo 8y ago
        Not really, you just have to write the law to allow what you think should be allowed. Some countries allow assisted suicide in non critical conditions, some allow it only for critical conditions, and some never allow it. I don't see why it would give any weight to those opposing assisted suicide. And TBH I don't understand what is the problem with assisted suicide for non critical conditions in the first place. People get to chose their life, and should be able to end it if they want to. The only alternative as I see it would be to put on the state the responsibility to make everyone so happy they would never want to die, which does not sound like something those opposing assisted suicide would want either. Why would we force people to live miserable lives?
        jacobush 8y ago
        Please at least try to see the other side of the argument. Or we could replace a large chunk of depression treatment with firing squads and it would be fine your argument above. After all, they wanted to die.
        AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
        You would prefer suicide by cop?
        werbistich 8y ago
        As someone who suffers from depression for almost 20 years I would like to provide some thought: Sometimes if you really just want to die and can not move out of bed, it would be REALLY(!) helpful if you would just be allowed to. If I could just go to my parents or my friends and say "hey, I love you all, but I have enough, I want to die" and if then nobody would be like "oh! you feel that bad? how can we help you? We are there for you" but just accept what I just said "I want to die", make an appointment at a doctor's office, give me some overdose and let me like. Act the same way as if I told them I want to move to another country, talk about it if you need, accept it and accept it as a life choice. If that would be really socially accepted–and I mean really accepted, not just some imaginary accepted by everyone just in order to treat the depressed–then I suspect a lot of depression would go away, because everyone who is depressed and fights to get out of bed everyday would have a real new choice, a real new option that is not looked down upon like "I want to die but everybody I love will be mad or sad". And having real options and choices you are free to take helps a lot if you are depressed. It's the feeling of having a lot of choices but being not allowed/accepted/able to take them that often stops one from finding the strength to fight back.

wahern 8y ago

Because it was repeatedly and conclusively shown at that point that her brain had atrophied to half its size. She was gone. The reason the situation almost devolved into an armed stand-off between the courts and the executive branch is because every judge (Florida and Federal) who looked at the case--that is, those officials presented with all the evidence from both sides--quickly understood the reality; whereas the politicians hundreds and thousands of miles away who hadn't the first clue about the facts had other objectives in mind. The subsequent autopsy confirmed what was already known. But there was never any accountability because by then the media had moved on. Terry Schiavo is not the case to point to when questioning the science and treatment of PVS.

sandworm101 8y ago
It was a fight between scientists and non-scientists. The scientists saw the scans of her head that showed a void where there should have been brain. The non-scientists looked at a handful of home movies where here random movements and facial expressions occasionally lined up to make her look aware. Such debate between scientific evaluation and layperson "gut feelings" predate so many of today's debates re climate. It was also a generational fight. Her husband, the normal go-to for medical decisions was on one side, and her parents on the other. The parents wanted control over their daughter. They could not accept the widespread default that, for most all medical/legal matters, spouses trump parents. And this was Florida. So the "rights" of the older generation were given greater play in the courts than would have happened in other states.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- nonbel 8y ago
  >"The scientists saw the scans of her head that showed a void where there should have been brain." People with "no" (very small) brains due to hydrocephalus have been discovered who are successful mathematics students and public servants. So, not sure the scientists are right here. As long as the brain is shrinking slow enough it may not be a huge deal in terms of mental ability. http://mentalfloss.com/article/70204/man-without-brain http://mentalfloss.com/article/70204/man-without-brain https://www.theguardian.com/education/2003/oct/02/research.highereducation1 https://www.theguardian.com/education/2003/oct/02/research.h...

mikeash 8y ago

It doesn’t matter. Starving a bedridden patient to death is a passive activity, and is hence defined as “moral.” In contrast, giving them a morphine overdose so they die quickly and painlessly is an active measure and thus defined as “immoral.”

HillaryBriss 8y ago
> giving them a morphine overdose so they die quickly and painfully ? wait. is a morphine overdose painful?
- JshWright 8y ago
  No, that was surely a typo
  - mikeash 8y ago
    More like a sudden brain malfunction, but yeah.
sulam 8y ago
I think you meant "painlessly".
- mikeash 8y ago
  Uh, yeah, I kinda did. Thanks.
HillaryBriss 8y ago
I'm not taking a position on this or trying to argue. I'm truly somewhat confused by it all. I'm not sure I agree with this, as I find it, honestly, rather frightening in practice, but it seems like painkiller administration is a kind of euthanasia loophole, even in places where euthanasia is not legal: Passive euthanasia is the withholding of treatments necessary for the continuance of life. Whether the administration of increasingly necessary, albeit toxic doses of opioid analgesia is regarded as active or passive euthanasia is a matter of moral interpretation, but in order to pacify doctors’ consciences, it is usually regarded as a passive measure. Many people, therefore, regard it as an acceptable facet of good professional practice. https://jramc.bmj.com/content/147/3/367 https://jramc.bmj.com/content/147/3/367