| Author | Message | ||
     just me fromsouthorange Supporter Username: Jmfromsorange Post Number: 1056 Registered: 7-2003 |
Another thread in Soapbox prompted me to post this. By Arthur Caplan, Ph.D. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it. When it comes to the current laws regarding the withdrawal of feeding tubes in the terminally ill and permanently comatose, this sound bit of practical advice needs to be heeded. But recently the Pope proclaimed that feeding tubes should never be withdrawn from any patient and that health-care providers are morally obligated to provide nutrition and hydration regardless of a patient's wishes. The Pope's order spells trouble for your health care -- not only because it threatens to undermine a powerful social consensus in the United States about your right to refuse medical treatment, but also because it means you can no longer be sure whether a hospital will respect your request or that of your loved ones making a decision for you. In comments March 20 before the World Federation of Catholic Medical Associations, the Pope stated that patients who are permanently comatose are “always human” and “never become ‘vegetables’ or ‘animals.'" He went on to say that nutrition and hydration should be provided indefinitely even if there is no hope of a patient's recovery. The Pope’s position is directly at odds with current clinical practice in U.S. hospitals. In the 1990 case of Missouri's Nancy Cruzan, the U.S. Supreme Court answered the question of whether food and water are medical treatments that can be declined. Cruzan was in a car crash that left her in a persistent vegetative state -- her brain did not get oxygen for many minutes and was so damaged that doctors said she could not possibly ever think or feel again. But, at the insistence of U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, who was then Missouri's state attorney general, Cruzan was kept alive by a feeding tube despite the wishes of her family. Cruzan's parents fought for the better part of a decade to have her feeding tube withdrawn. Finally, in a landmark decision, the Supreme Court ruled that receiving food and water through tubes administered by nurses and doctors constitutes medical treatment and that if there is clear and convincing evidence about what a patient would have wanted, then the feeding tubes can be withdrawn. It was the Cruzan case that ensured that if Americans take the time to fill out a living will or designate a decision maker, they can still exercise their right to stop all forms of medical care even if they are unable to communicate. Not a form of euthanasia Ever since then, America has maintained an ethical consensus on the issue. Medical organizations, critical care specialists, hospice workers, numerous state and appellate courts, and legal experts have all affirmed the soundness of the Cruzan decision. If you do not want blood, a ventilator, kidney dialysis, insulin, food and water, or any medical care at all, you can refuse it. And even a person in a permanent coma or vegetative state can exercise the same rights either through a living will or their closest family member. Not only does the Pope’s order undermine these rights, but his claims that withdrawing feeding tubes is cruel and a form of euthanasia are mistaken. Patients refuse life-sustaining treatment all the time in American hospitals. Jehovah’s Witnesses say no to life-saving blood transfusions and their subsequent deaths are not treated as suicides. Dying patients request that ventilators and dialysis machines be turned off and no one considers doctors' decisions to honor these requests cruel or a form of euthanasia. So why make a special case about receiving chemicals through feeding tubes? The Pope’s aim in reminding us that all people, even those in permanent comas or vegetative states, are human beings deserving of compassion and care is important. But he is wrong about what confers dignity on the sick and the dying. It is not about artificially feeding them against their will, but about finding ways to let their will be respected. The right to control your medical care is one of the most fundamental rights you have. Respect for your liberty means that even if you are unable to assert your autonomy, others should be able to do so for you or you should be able to write your wishes down so that others must respect them. No one should be forced to endure medical treatment that they do not want. Nothing could be more cruel or disrespectful of human dignity. Arthur Caplan is director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania. © 2005 MSNBC Interactive | ||
| tjohn Citizen Username: Tjohn Post Number: 2948 Registered: 12-2001  |
I prefer the Christian Scientist approach - use no medicine or medical technology. The Pope is so far out of line on this one it is sad. He is applying 2000 year old doctrine to situations that could not have been imagined back then. Even 200 years ago, the probability of a person living for any amount of time with a permanent severe disability was very low. By severe disability, I refer to one where you are unable to feed or bathe yourself. | ||
| just me fromsouthorange Supporter Username: Jmfromsorange Post Number: 1060 Registered: 7-2003 |
bump | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 5198 Registered: 5-2001 |
If an observant fundamentalist Roman Catholic physician has a patient who (1)is not of the Roman Catholic faith; (2)has a medical condition which requires extradordinary means life support; and (3) has clearly made his/her wishes known that he/she does not want extraordinary measures used to preserve his/her life in such an instance, does this mean that the Roman Catholic physician would now be obligated to act in contradiction to that patient (and that patient's family's) wishes by keeping the patient on life support indefinitely against their expressed will? Would this physician be required to act in this manner even in places where the law clearly permits living wills to be binding? If this is the case, it would raise all sorts of moral questions and should unfortunately lead people who support the right to die to consider the religious beliefs as well as the skill of any physician who might be treating them in the future. | ||
| tjohn Citizen Username: Tjohn Post Number: 2961 Registered: 12-2001 |
Joan, It isn't a question of faith. It is a question of having your cake and eating it too. Doctors play God when they save lives through extraordinary measures. That's OK but it is wrong when the submit to God's will and let him take somebody from this world? I believe that you are either of a faith that rejects all medical intervention or you are not and you can't have it both ways. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 7953 Registered: 5-2001 |
On a practical level I wonder how this will play out at Catholic medical centers such as St. Barnabas and Beth Israel (now run by Catholic Charities). I believe the Catholic church is one of the largest operatorts of voluntary hospitals in the country. | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 5199 Registered: 5-2001 |
Tjohn: I am of a faith that believes both the approaches of supporting right to life in all cases and not medically interfering with the will of G-d by treating a patient are intrinsically wrong. A physician should not be a placed in a position to make such a personal decision for his/her patient by being moally obligated to follow the religious teachings of the physician's (rather than the patient's) belief system. What I object to is anyone's life being put in the hands of a physician who will rely more on his/her religious convictions than his/her medical training and/or the expressed wishes of the patient. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 3300 Registered: 8-2003 |
Speaking of submitting to God's will and letting him take someone.....apply that to the discussion of charity. If God really wanted the poor to thrive, He would feed them. Extraordinary measures? How about the trillions of The Great Society which was a failure? I heard someone on talk radio say "What if her parents who want custody and care for her die? Who will take care of her then?" How about the same folks that pay for the nursing home care of millions of old folks who transfer whatever wealth they have to their kids and let Medicare pick up the rest until they die. The kids can't take care of the parents. Priorities and all that, don't ya know. | ||
| tjohn Citizen Username: Tjohn Post Number: 2966 Registered: 12-2001 |
Cjc, As you voted for the party of God's will, please feel free to share with us God's will in regard to the poor. I do not subscribe to some attempt to divine and apply God's will. Moreover, as a registered Democrat, I am not authorized direct communication with God. My only point was that if somebody uses the "playing God" argument in any decision to discontinue live support, they must acknowledge that we also play God every time a doctor brings somebody back from a seemingly fatal accident. It's great when that person can enjoy life aftewards and isn't so great when they are left without anything more than primitive brain functions. | ||
| anon Citizen Username: Anon Post Number: 1716 Registered: 6-2002 |
"Blessed are the Poor, for they shall be called the Children of God" Jesus | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 1109 Registered: 8-2003  |
all I know is this tells me I better get myself an iron-clad living will pronto. I don't want to be kept alive with respirator, feeding tube, suspendended animation, or cryogenic freezing. if I'm ever in the state Terry Schiavo is, I hope the doctors let me die. | ||
| themp Supporter Username: Themp Post Number: 1588 Registered: 12-2001 |
 | ||
| mtierney Citizen Username: Mtierney Post Number: 798 Registered: 3-2001 |
I need to know more. Was the relationship of Terri and her husband rocky and close to divorcing at the time she got sick as I have read? How many 20 somethings voice feelings about life support? How much money did the husband receive and what was the money to be spent on? How much money is left? Why hasn't Terri received physical therapy? Why has she not received evaluations yearly? Why did the court not appoint another guardian in the late '90s when the one who was holding that post expressed concerns about the husband? Why did the husband wait 7 years to reveal his wife's wishes? Why won't the husband who is living with another woman and has two kids turn the care of Terri over to the parents who have repeatedly asked for this? That should have happened years ago. These questions blur the whole situation for me. | ||
| tjohn Citizen Username: Tjohn Post Number: 2974 Registered: 12-2001 |
I have to believe that all of those questions and many, many more were argued in the Florida courts. | ||
| LibraryLady(ncjanow) Supporter Username: Librarylady Post Number: 2334 Registered: 5-2001  |
Why are the answers to any of those questions your business? The case has been in court so many times it's easy to lose count. Each and everyone of your concerns (which neither you or the U.S. Congress have any right to ask)have been addressed. Should we take a national referendum every time a legal spouse and his/her inlaws disagree? A less honest and caring man whould have just thrown up his hands and given up by now, but Michael feels duty bound to carry thru on his wife's wishes. (and if you have ever been at a funeral where the deceased life was artifically prolonged, you might very well, even at 20 something, say what you wanted. Maybe not enough to complete a written document but certainly enough to state one's preference.) | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 3304 Registered: 8-2003 |
I've read Michael Schiavo didn't pursue termination of Terry's life until after he had received a malpractise award of over 1 million, 250K from her general practitioner and 300K for loss of consortium. He's spent some 400K of the 750K held in trust for Terri's rehab on lawyers to remove her feeding tube. He's been offered over 1 million by an outside party to walk away from Terry and allow her to be cared for by her parents with no financial obligation to Terry for the rest of his life, including a divorce so he can legally go on living with his new companion and the two children he's had with her. | ||
| tjohn Citizen Username: Tjohn Post Number: 2976 Registered: 12-2001 |
Something doesn't add up. Assuming the offer of 1M comes with guarantees and he didn't take it, it would seem like this isn't a money thing. Maybe this is just a good ole' pissin' contest between Schiavo and his in-laws. Stranger things have happened. Maybe Schiavo really believes in what he is doing. | ||
| LilLB Citizen Username: Lillb Post Number: 450 Registered: 10-2002  |
Just thinking about the Pope's statement on this matter....does that also mean that he doesn't think Catholics should have living wills -- at least the ones that state they don't want to be kept alive this way? | ||
| Duncan Supporter Username: Duncanrogers Post Number: 4001 Registered: 12-2001  |
No matter what you think.. This is not the business of the federal government. That is for Damn sure. | ||
| Strawberry Statement Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 4664 Registered: 10-2001 |
All of a sudden libs don't want the federal government involved. Holy hypocritical. They spend their lives screaming for more federal assistance. More federal protection, blah blah blah... Now, they oppose it.. sheesh. |
