Do you support suicide assistance? - Page 9

jillio · 10-06-2008, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daredevel7

So let's say 100 years from now, they have found more ways to prolong people's lives (but their terminal illness is still incurable), you are okay with them living 20-30 more years living and suffering like this? This is natural? I don't even think living up to 90 is "natural".

Weird how some people assume that if we "pull the plug", we are playing god, and yet to them, if we help people live longer through meds etc, this is NOT playing god.

Exactly. Forcing nutrients into a body that does not even have enough awareness to experience hunger is playing god. The body of such an individual is trying to die, and has died on many, many levels. Man prevents the natural course of action from taking place. To what end? Millions and millions of dollars spent to keep a body lying in a bed that cannot communicate, cannot interact, cannot know when it is hungry or thirsty, can, essentially, do nothing but lie there and have things forced on it.

jillio · 10-06-2008, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheri

Agreed! He didn't take his marriage vows seriously of "for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do you part". I would not want a husband who decide for my life while he's having an affair. I don't understand why the court didn't see it that way. If I was a judge I would gave the parents the control over their daughter's life not the husband.

Death parted them long before the feeding tube was removed.

And the law is very specific in who is the next of kin. No judge could have enforced it otherwise. It was a case decided on law, not emotion. As it should have been.

The fact that someone had to have control is the very issue on which the case was decided.

**Angel** · 10-06-2008, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oceanbreeze

The Living Will was in existence before we even heard of Terri Schiavo. If you go to the hospital for any reason, you are asked if you have one. If you don't, you're asked if you want to draw up one. The hospital is required by law to ask if a living will exists.

Perhaps she meant was people wasn't aware how important the living will was until Terri's case came along. Now people can decide for themselves how they would like to be treated under similar circumstances.

Correct me anytime if I'm wrong Maria.

And I went to the hospital last week no one asked my husband if he had a living will.

jillio · 10-06-2008, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oceanbreeze

The Living Will was in existence before we even heard of Terri Schiavo. If you go to the hospital for any reason, you are asked if you have one. If you don't, you're asked if you want to draw up one. The hospital is required by law to ask if a living will exists.

Exactly. The Shivo case only illustrated the importance of everyone having one.

jillio · 10-06-2008, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angel

Perhaps she meant was people wasn't aware how important the living will was until Terri's case came along. Now people can decide for themselves how they would like to be treated under similar circumstances.

Correct me anytime if I'm wrong Maria.

And I went to the hospital last week no one asked my husband if he had a living will.

Was he critically ill?

Oceanbreeze · 10-06-2008, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angel

Perhaps she meant was people wasn't aware how important the living will was until Terri's case came along. Now people can decide for themselves how they would like to be treated under similar circumstances.

Correct me anytime if I'm wrong Maria.

And I went to the hospital last week no one asked my husband if he had a living will.

If he was admitted, he should have been asked. If he wasn't, they broke the law. There are also signs posted usually in the admitting office.

**Angel** · 10-06-2008, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Death parted them long before the feeding tube was removed.

Would you please clarify that?, I didn't really understand what you meant by that.

**Angel** · 10-06-2008, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Was he critically ill?

No but she said "If you go to the hospital for any reason"

Oceanbreeze · 10-06-2008, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angel

No but she said "If you go to the hospital for any reason"

Let me clarify...

If you're admitted for any reason.... Is that better?

**Maria** · 10-06-2008, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

That is why it is important to execute a living will while you are healthy and young. Aliving will, or advanced directive as it is properly called, must be executed by a competent individual. Otherwise, it is null and void.

And, evidently, the courts did not see it as "terminating her life" but of allowing her illness to take its natural course.

To me, yes I see it as " terminatin' her life ", because of stop feedin'. That word " starvin" -- could lead her to death. It was very wrong to MAKE her starve which will lead her to death. I am not talkin' about her " illness ". I am talkin' about what is really wrong. It's wrong to commit murder in someone else's hands without Terri's consent.

A living will can also state that you want heroic measures taken, and that you want to live your life as a brain dead body if that is all that is possible. It is a directive for medical care in the case that the indivudal is so injured or incapacitated that they cannot make decisions or communicate their wishes themselves at that point in time.

Look at comatose patients. They don't wake up for how long ? It depends on in their bodies if it is able to recover or not. It takes on its own nature whether it should decide to let a patient to die or live a little bit more longer. Some patients make it to come out of coma and live after few/several or many years. You really don't know the answers, only the body can decide for itself. And, yes it is wrong for some people to end their love ones' life to die and yet, they may be surprised to realize that someone else's love ones come out of coma after a few or several years and, it was too late for other families to get their love ones back. You really don't know, Jillio. Livin' Will is a gamble game to me. It's why I said it is wrong to terminate someone's life in despite of their illnesses or what have they that they could not take care of. Like Karen's case, she surprised to some people that she was on her own breathin' without support after takin' the plug off. Has anyone ever thought of it that it will happen ? No, I don't think so.

jillio · 10-06-2008, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angel

Would you please clarify that?, I didn't really understand what you meant by that.

I meant that she was only alive as the result of artificial means. There was no more relationship, as she was not capable of engaging in the thought process and emotional process that would define an interactive relationship.

jillio · 10-06-2008, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maria

Look at comatose patients. They don't wake up for how long ? It depends on in their bodies if it is able to recover or not. It takes on its own nature whether it should decide to let a patient to die or live a little bit more longer. Some patients make it to come out of coma and live after few/several or many years. You really don't know the answers, only the body can decide for itself. And, yes it is wrong for some people to end their love ones' life to die and yet, they may be surprised to realize that someone else's love ones come out of coma after a few or several years and, it was too late for other families to get their love ones back. You really don't know, Jillio. Livin' Will is a gamble game to me. It's why I said it is wrong to terminate someone's life in despite of their illnesses or what have they that they could not take care of. Like Karen's case, she surprised to some people that she was on her own breathin' without support after takin' the plug off. Has anyone ever thought of it that it will happen ? No, I don't think so.

You are correct. Only the body can decide for itself. When one does not feed a body, breathe for a body, cause a body's heart to beat with artificial means, one has allowed the body to decide for itself. Either it heals or it dies. Either way, it has decided for itself. Artificial measures that maintain a vegetative state are preventing the body from deciding for itself. Teri Shivos body decided for itself. It died. It died because the body could not do that which was necessary for life.

**Angel** · 10-06-2008, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oceanbreeze

Let me clarify...

If you're admitted for any reason.... Is that better?

No needed to repeat, I read your post #246, I didn't see it until after I replied to Jillio. Thanks anyways.

**Maria** · 10-06-2008, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daredevel7

So let's say 100 years from now, they have found more ways to prolong people's lives (but their terminal illness is still incurable), you are okay with them living 20-30 more years living and suffering like this? This is natural? I don't even think living up to 90 is "natural".

Weird how some people assume that if we "pull the plug", we are playing god, and yet to them, if we help people live longer through meds etc, this is NOT playing god.

I don't think it will take up to 90 to 100 years. If, patients just happen still alive without the means of support such as machine, then it's best to feed until they die naturally - like Karen's. I don't want people to get INVOLVED, just stay back and let the patients' bodies work for itself while they are bein' fed. Their bodies will decide on its own - live or die. Let the heart beats on it own if, it works until it stops workin'.

Babyblue · 10-06-2008, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Exactly. Forcing nutrients into a body that does not even have enough awareness to experience hunger is playing god. The body of such an individual is trying to die, and has died on many, many levels. Man prevents the natural course of action from taking place. To what end? Millions and millions of dollars spent to keep a body lying in a bed that cannot communicate, cannot interact, cannot know when it is hungry or thirsty, can, essentially, do nothing but lie there and have things forced on it.

I agree. Why keep a person in limbo. The person that was known, is dead. So why keep the flesh alive?

Basically that was the case with Terri

**Maria** · 10-06-2008, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oceanbreeze

The Living Will was in existence before we even heard of Terri Schiavo. If you go to the hospital for any reason, you are asked if you have one. If you don't, you're asked if you want to draw up one. The hospital is required by law to ask if a living will exists.

Source for the Livin' Will that was in existence before Terri Schiavo story began ?

jillio · 10-06-2008, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angel

No needed to repeat, I read your post #246, I didn't see it until after I replied to Jillio. Thanks anyways.

Just saw your reply...I was off visting some other threads.

Well, a living will would not come into play unless it was suspected that he would become ill enough that he could not make his wishes known,or his illness made him mentally incompetent to make decisions about his own health care.

jillio · 10-06-2008, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maria

Source for the Livin' Will that was in existence before Terri Schiavo story began ?

It goes all the way back to the legal concept of durable power of attorney. That is a concept that has been in existence for at least 75 years, probably longer. It has become more widely publicized, and the general public has become more aware as the technological advances make it more necessary.

**Maria** · 10-06-2008, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

It goes all the way back to the legal concept of durable power of attorney. That is a concept that has been in existence for at least 75 years, probably longer. It has become more widely publicized, and the general public has become more aware as the technological advances make it more necessary.

Well, I am not askin' for your own words without source. I am askin' OceanBreeze for source since she brought up about the Livin' Will that is in existence. Please, allow her to respond.

**Maria** · 10-06-2008, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

You are correct. Only the body can decide for itself. When one does not feed a body, breathe for a body, cause a body's heart to beat with artificial means, one has allowed the body to decide for itself. Either it heals or it dies. Either way, it has decided for itself. Artificial measures that maintain a vegetative state are preventing the body from deciding for itself. Teri Shivos body decided for itself. It died. It died because the body could not do that which was necessary for life.

It died as you stated ? It didn't die until her husband starved her to death. She died by starvation in the hands of her husband. It means to end livin' or life.

jillio · 10-06-2008, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maria

Well, I am not askin' for your own words without source. I am askin' OceanBreeze for source since she brought up about the Livin' Will that is in existence. Please, allow her to respond.

Google is your friend. Thank you.

jillio · 10-06-2008, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maria

It died as you stated ? It didn't die until her husband starved her to death. She died by starvation in the hands of her husband. It means to end livin' or life.

Her husband did not starve her to death. Her body starved itself to death becuase it did not even have the capability to experience hunger, much less nourish itself.

He didn't personally remove the articficial nutrition. He did not do anything to put her body in the state of illness and injury it was in that led to her not being able to take nutrition through usual means. Never once after the feeding tube was removed did Teri Shivo ask for food.

**Daredevel7** · 10-06-2008, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maria

It died as you stated ? It didn't die until her husband starved her to death. She died by starvation in the hands of her husband. It means to end livin' or life.

Let's put it in another way. Theoretically, let's say that someone's heart does not supply enough oxygen to the brain (or there is some clot in the brain), so we have to MANUALLY feed the brain oxygen to keep the body alive. However, the brain died earlier since there was no oxygen for a brief period of time. If we stop supplying oxygen to the brain, the body will die. Is this something you'd keep supplying?

**Maria** · 10-06-2008, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Her husband did not starve her to death. Her body starved itself to death becuase it did not even have the capability to experience hunger, much less nourish itself.

He didn't personally remove the articficial nutrition. He did not do anything to put her body in the state of illness and injury it was in that led to her not being able to take nutrition through usual means. Never once after the feeding tube was removed did Teri Shivo ask for food.

Then who asked to stop feedin' Terri ? Who withheld food and water from her for 2 weeks before her heart stopped workin' ?

**Maria** · 10-06-2008, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daredevel7

Let's put it in another way. Theoretically, let's say that someone's heart does not supply enough oxygen to the brain (or there is some clot in the brain), so we have to MANUALLY feed the brain oxygen to keep the body alive. However, the brain died earlier since there was no oxygen for a brief period of time. If we stop supplying oxygen to the brain, the body will die. Is this something you'd keep supplying?

Once the heart stops beatin', then she is pronounced dead totally.

**Maria** · 10-06-2008, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Google is your friend. Thank you.

Obviously, someone isn't bein' candid with me about the existence of Livin' Will before Terri Schiavo case began.

jillio · 10-06-2008, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maria

Then who asked to stop feedin' Terri ? Who withheld food and water from her for 2 weeks before her heart stopped workin' ?

The doctors that removed the feeding tube under an order from the court.

Teri Shivo's body could not be nourished through any other than artificial means. She could not eat, she could not drink, she could not even experience the sensations of hunger and thirst because her brain was so injured. If your brain does not send the messages to your body, your body dies. The brain controls all of the bodies functions, from eating, sleeping, breathing, heart beating, to elimination of waste. If the brain can no longer tell the body to do these things, they don't get done and the body dies.

**Jiro** · 10-06-2008, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maria

Once the heart stops beatin', then she is pronounced dead totally.

why worry about heart if the person is brain-dead which means... ZERO chance of recovery... ZERO chance of normality... there's no miracle at all... not even 0.001% unless Jesus Christ himself descended from the heaven and breathed a life into her. Why do you want a dead body to continue to live on by machines? Heart itself does not define a person... or a soul. It's in the brain and that brain is long gone long time ago.

jillio · 10-06-2008, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

why worry about heart if the person is brain-dead which means... ZERO chance of recovery... ZERO chance of normality... there's no miracle at all... not even 0.001% unless Jesus Christ himself descended from the heaven and breathed a life into her. Why do you want a dead body to continue to live on by machines? Heart itself does not define a person... or a soul. It's in the brain and that brain is long gone long time ago.

Exactly. Autonomic activiity like heart beating and respiration are controlled by the brain. That is why doctors use brain death as the final criteria.

Tousi · 10-06-2008, 03:11 PM

It would have been so cruel to leave Teri the way she was...beyond the point of no return.

View Poll Results: Do you support suicide assistance?
Yes	21	44.68%
No	16	34.04%
Don´t know	8	17.02%
Other	2	4.26%
Voters: 47. You may not vote on this poll

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Today
Deafness	Sponsored Links __________________ This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

10-06-2008, 03:11 PM	#270 (permalink)
Tousi Registered User Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 15,798	It would have been so cruel to leave Teri the way she was...beyond the point of no return.