5 ms·

It's certainly a great reminder that I should (as should everyone) make a living will. If you ever end up in a persistent vegetative state, it's grueling for y

by jtheory 13y ago

It's certainly a great reminder that I should (as should everyone) make a living will. If you ever end up in a persistent vegetative state, it's grueling for your family & loved ones. We now have the tech to keep you sort-of alive for many years, but it's not cheap, of course. There have been ridiculous controversies in the US (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo_case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo_case for a good example) about families that have decided (with the support of medical professionals) to pull the plug after years of suffering... and there may be protests from the devout (because to some people, any action or explicit inaction that causes a life to end is murder), political interference all the way up to high levels, etc.. It's also somewhat sad that if it's time to give up on restoring a person to working order, the ways of doing that may be limited to somewhat slow & cruel methods (like removing a feeding tube) rather than more humane methods, due to the legal terrain. There's a certain level of brain damage from which it's not possible to recover a functional person; it's hard to draw that line (see OP for emphasis on that), but it's a line that people in real life are obligated to draw on a regular basis. If you make a living will that specifies that you do not wish to be kept on life support if your brain activity is below X for Y time (a bit of research required here), you can save the people you leave behind a great deal of heartache by not foisting the decision on them.

carbocation 13y ago
Removing a feeding tube, when consistent with the patient's wishes, is not cruel; rather, when appropriate, it is one of the most humane ways to permit a dead or dying brain's body to die.
- Cass 13y ago
  It's not exactly cruel, but it's also not exactly the most pleasant way to die. We recently pulled a patient's feeding tube (in accordance with her own wishes - she had terminal cancer, and had been able to see the end coming for a while), and it took her a full freaking eighteen days to die on no sustenance but a single cup of water someone gave her on day six. We obviously had the poor woman on a morphine pump the whole time, so she was too out of it most of the time to suffer much, but it's not a perfect system - she kept having moments where she'd become more awake and agitated, and I did feel like she was experiencing some suffering in those moments during our best efforts. Coincidentally at the same time, I had to have my cat put to sleep. The vet came to my house, he received a single injection, and then he peacefully fell asleep in my arms without so much as a twitch. The entire process took not five minutes altogether. I know which way of dying I'd prefer, if it was my terminally ill body at stake.
  - voidlogic 13y ago
    Ironic, isn't it, that humane treatment is reserved for non-humans.
LordKano 13y ago
Terri Schiavo's family was split. Her parents wanted to keep feeding her while her husband fought to remove the feeding tube and prevent anyone from feeding her by mouth. Conveniently for Michael, Terri was allowed to starve to death and he was free to spend whatever remained of the 2 million dollar medical malpractice judgement on himself, his new consort and their children.
- jtheory 13y ago
  His consort? Sheesh, I guess you still have pretty strong opinions about that case. I still don't know most of these details, and have forgotten most of what I learned at the time, and honestly that's for the better. It's none of my friggin' business, except that it highlighted some serious problems in the US legal system. And we could have learned about that problem without ever hearing the name "Terri Schiavo" or knowing anything about the personal lives of her & her family. Until the problems are fixed (if they can be), it's important to make a living will. It shouldn't be left to your husband and parents (and the news anchors, and higher elected officials of your country) to battle each other over who has more right to say what should happen to your brainless body. Make sure the people who need to know understand roughly what you want, and who you trust to make decisions on your behalf about palliative care, life-prolonging treatments, etc.. Google has lots of advice, free templates, etc.. Wikipedia says Terri was brain-dead for 15 years before she finally died. I don't think I know anyone who'd want their body kept alive that long. I know I would not.
  - LordKano 13y ago
    Yes, I still get very angry about that case. We watched the legal system assist her husband in euthanizing her. Saying that Ms. Schiavo was "brain dead" is an inaccurate description. Terri was severely brain damaged. She was in a persistent vegetative state. She exhibited a profound loss of brain mass. She would have never recovered but she wasn't brain dead either. Brain dead people don't react to their mother's voice. Terri did. Brain dead people don't track moving object. Terri did. It's not like she was on life support. They gave her food and water through a tube. She breathed on her own and her heart beat on its own without any external assistance. She wasn't allowed to die; she was starved to death and again, that makes me angry.

by jtheory 13y ago

carbocation 13y ago

Removing a feeding tube, when consistent with the patient's wishes, is not cruel; rather, when appropriate, it is one of the most humane ways to permit a dead or dying brain's body to die.

Cass 13y ago
It's not exactly cruel, but it's also not exactly the most pleasant way to die. We recently pulled a patient's feeding tube (in accordance with her own wishes - she had terminal cancer, and had been able to see the end coming for a while), and it took her a full freaking eighteen days to die on no sustenance but a single cup of water someone gave her on day six. We obviously had the poor woman on a morphine pump the whole time, so she was too out of it most of the time to suffer much, but it's not a perfect system - she kept having moments where she'd become more awake and agitated, and I did feel like she was experiencing some suffering in those moments during our best efforts. Coincidentally at the same time, I had to have my cat put to sleep. The vet came to my house, he received a single injection, and then he peacefully fell asleep in my arms without so much as a twitch. The entire process took not five minutes altogether. I know which way of dying I'd prefer, if it was my terminally ill body at stake.
- voidlogic 13y ago
  Ironic, isn't it, that humane treatment is reserved for non-humans.

LordKano 13y ago

Terri Schiavo's family was split. Her parents wanted to keep feeding her while her husband fought to remove the feeding tube and prevent anyone from feeding her by mouth. Conveniently for Michael, Terri was allowed to starve to death and he was free to spend whatever remained of the 2 million dollar medical malpractice judgement on himself, his new consort and their children.

jtheory 13y ago
His consort? Sheesh, I guess you still have pretty strong opinions about that case. I still don't know most of these details, and have forgotten most of what I learned at the time, and honestly that's for the better. It's none of my friggin' business, except that it highlighted some serious problems in the US legal system. And we could have learned about that problem without ever hearing the name "Terri Schiavo" or knowing anything about the personal lives of her & her family. Until the problems are fixed (if they can be), it's important to make a living will. It shouldn't be left to your husband and parents (and the news anchors, and higher elected officials of your country) to battle each other over who has more right to say what should happen to your brainless body. Make sure the people who need to know understand roughly what you want, and who you trust to make decisions on your behalf about palliative care, life-prolonging treatments, etc.. Google has lots of advice, free templates, etc.. Wikipedia says Terri was brain-dead for 15 years before she finally died. I don't think I know anyone who'd want their body kept alive that long. I know I would not.
- LordKano 13y ago
  Yes, I still get very angry about that case. We watched the legal system assist her husband in euthanizing her. Saying that Ms. Schiavo was "brain dead" is an inaccurate description. Terri was severely brain damaged. She was in a persistent vegetative state. She exhibited a profound loss of brain mass. She would have never recovered but she wasn't brain dead either. Brain dead people don't react to their mother's voice. Terri did. Brain dead people don't track moving object. Terri did. It's not like she was on life support. They gave her food and water through a tube. She breathed on her own and her heart beat on its own without any external assistance. She wasn't allowed to die; she was starved to death and again, that makes me angry.