Do you support suicide assistance?

[Maria]

Her husband? She wasn't married. You must be talking about Terri. That was Karen in the picture not Terri.

Thanks!

 

[jillio]

Who would have thought of " livin' will " ? Not until Terri's life was terminated by her own husband and then, the talks of livin' will began after her death. It affected many people to think about, because of what happened to Terri and that it was wrong of her husband to cut her life short -- that's what it impacted people today....so, therefore, this livin' will became a law when it first created. It was never created before.

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.

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.

 

[IslandGal]

Me, too. We are consider to have one but we talked about those issues with my boys on the same time as we saw on TV about Terri Schiavo's case... My boys said that it's cruel to leave Terri suffering like this for long years...

I would repeat my decision when I want to discuss with my children over assisted suicide and get them to respect my wish to let doctor to put me die peaceful only if they cant do anything to save my life. Why should I suffer all the months or years and living under the machine?

In my eyes, it was more cruel of Michael to let her starve to death. He wanted her to die so he could marry his girlfriend. He could have divorced her but he wanted her to die instead. That is more cruel to me.

 

[Cheri]

In my eyes, it was more cruel of Michael to let her starve to death. He wanted her to die so he could marry his girlfriend. He could have divorced her but he wanted her to die instead. That is more cruel to me.

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.

 

[Oceanbreeze]

I personally disagree with tube removal to starve her death. They should do something like shot to put her sleep like what they did with suffering pets.

This was debated over and over again, but she was in a persistent vegetative state. Shew didn't have the capacity to feel anything during the process. There are are also protocols that are adhered once the tube is removed. If the person is capable of feeling pain, they are giving medication, so there is no pain. In essense, the person feels nothing.

But, I agree with you on your point about the injection. It is quicker and much less traumatic for the family to "pull the plug", but in this case, Terri wasn't on a ventilator, so there was no "plug" to pull.

 

[jillio]

This was debated over and over again, but she was in a persistent vegetative state. Shew didn't have the capacity to feel anything during the process. There are are also protocols that are adhered once the tube is removed. If the person is capable of feeling pain, they are giving medication, so there is no pain. In essense, the person feels nothing.

But, I agree with you on your point about the injection. It is quicker and much less traumatic for the family to "pull the plug", but in this case, Terri wasn't on a ventilator, so there was no "plug" to pull.

But giving an injection creates death. That is euthanasia, and falls under murder statues. Removing a feeding tube does not create death, it simply allows death to occur in an individual that cannot survive without artifical means that does what their body cannot.

 

[Oceanbreeze]

But giving an injection creates death. That is euthanasia, and falls under murder statues. Removing a feeding tube does not create death, it simply allows death to occur in an individual that cannot survive without artifical means that does what their body cannot.

True. It does. I support removal of feeding tubes. However, it's not always easy for the families to watch even though there are protocols in place, so the person doesn't suffer.

I guess, though, if you're losing a loved one, it hurts no matter what.

 

[Oceanbreeze]

It's wrong to take Terri's life away without her consent. It doesn't matter if she is unable to make the decision at the time when she was in this condition. It was very wrong of her husband to end her life by starvin' her to death. By " endin' someone's life " is still morally wrong. If, Terri hadn't make a livin' will at the time before she fall into this terrible condition, then her husband shouldn't have end her life in the first place. He SHOULD support her through until her fate or destiny takes over to end her life naturally. Like for instance : Karen Ann Quinlan. Does that ring a bell to you ? Her devoted Catholic parents stood up for her for years and refused to end her life until Karen died on her own by natural cause. I am very impressed by her parents' showin' love for her daughter. It touched people's lives. That's what I would like to see in some parents - but, unfortunately, I don't see many of them are like Karen's parents.

You need to check your facts. There was a court case involving Karen which gave people the right to pull the plug.

Karen Ann Quinlan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

After seeing Karen like this for several months, her family finally came to the conclusion that she was beyond hope, and decided to remove her from the ventilator. Hospital officials refused. The Quinlan family persevered, and in 1976 they took their case to the New Jersey Supreme Court, which ruled in their favor. When she was taken off the respirator, Quinlan surprised many by continuing to breathe unaided, and was fed by artificial nutrition for nine more years.

 

[Angel]

but what about pets? We agree to "killing" the pets to save their suffering, don't we? We also agree that it's cruel to let the pets suffering, don't we?

Let's just say I didn't feel comfortable making that decision and it wasn't easy.

When my cat (Smokey) became very sick, I did everything I could to keep him alive, gave him "special" food, medicines (that was provided by the vet), lots of love and care.

Few days later, I noticed some changes in him, he started breathing erratically, he couldn't get up or move. He was just laying there helpless. It was really difficult not knowing what to do, and the last few hours became worse so I took him back to the vet and asked if there was anything that they could do to help him but unfortunately there was nothing else and was told that he had a very slim chance to survive and it was up to me if I wanted to put him to sleep. Part of me wanted to wait because I wasn't ready but the other part of me wanted to do the right thing by ending his suffering.

I stayed with him while the vet gave him a shot, I was tearing up inside and crying. I pet him and watched him fade away. It sucks but I knew I had to let him go no matter how hard it was. It was heart-wrenching moment for me especially for my children..

I guess it's part of life where we have to go through the painful experiences that can go very deep and everyone handles it differently.

 

[Maria]

You need to check your facts. There was a court case involving Karen which gave people the right to pull the plug.

Karen Ann Quinlan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

After seeing Karen like this for several months, her family finally came to the conclusion that she was beyond hope, and decided to remove her from the ventilator. Hospital officials refused. The Quinlan family persevered, and in 1976 they took their case to the New Jersey Supreme Court, which ruled in their favor. When she was taken off the respirator, Quinlan surprised many by continuing to breathe unaided, and was fed by artificial nutrition for nine more years.

That's what I am meanin'. Her parents refused to do somethin' to end her daughter's life like Michael did by starvin' his wife to death WITHOUT feedin'. Karen's parents don't do that to her daughter, let alone the " natural cause " take its course. Karen was fed by artifical nutrition.

 

[jillio]

True. It does. I support removal of feeding tubes. However, it's not always easy for the families to watch even though there are protocols in place, so the person doesn't suffer.

I guess, though, if you're losing a loved one, it hurts no matter what.

**nodding** And very often, decisions regarding heroic measures are made more with the family members emotional pain in mind than with what is most feasable for the patient as the first priority, if you catch my drift.

 

[jillio]

That's what I am meanin'. Her parents refused to do somethin' to end her daughter's life like Michael did by starvin' his wife to death WITHOUT feedin'. Karen's parents don't do that to her daughter, let alone the " natural cause " take its course. Karen was fed by artifical nutrition.

To what end. In the nine years she was alive, she remained in a vegetative state. She died in the same vegetative state. The only thing that prevented her from completing the death process was artificial feedings. She died many years prior. They just wouldn't let her go.

 

[Daredevel7]

It makes me wonder if later in the future if we will develop MORE technology to keep people alive but still brain dead or suffering while still incurable. This is kinda depressing to me.

 

[Rio]

No, I don't support suicide assistance.

 

[Maria]

To what end. In the nine years she was alive, she remained in a vegetative state. She died in the same vegetative state. The only thing that prevented her from completing the death process was artificial feedings. She died many years prior. They just wouldn't let her go.

If, you think about " stop feedin' " by lettin' her go, then that would be commit murder just like what Michael did to his wife.

In my own eyes, I feel that it is right thing to do by feedin' UNTIL the death takes place thru by natural cause just like Karen Quinlan's case.

 

[Oceanbreeze]

**nodding** And very often, decisions regarding heroic measures are made more with the family members emotional pain in mind than with what is most feasable for the patient as the first priority, if you catch my drift.

I do, but that's also a good point. When I was ill three years ago, I many experiences that made me thankful for my living will. I cited one in this thread already. I'll cite another....

I was ill for a long time. During my illness, I conctracted several infections. One of them found their way into my blood stream and I went into shock as a result. Usually, when this happens, the patient goes unconcience. The blood pressure falls as a result of shock, and they lose conscienceness. However, I didn't. I was aware of everything going on. I was aware of how sick I was as I literally watched my blood pressure drop lower and lower. It finally bottomed out at 65/38, which is almost incompatible with life. I was so unbelievably cold and could not get warm. Eventually, the antibiotics they were giving me kicked in and I stablized.

Looking back, I realized if that were to ever happen again, I DID NOT want to be aware of anything going on. I have since drawn up another living will and specified that in the event of a life threatening illness, I did NOT want to be aware of what was going on. Even if it hastens my death, I want to rendered unconscience and unaware of my surroundings, because that was asbsolutely the scariest thing I've ever been through.

 

[Daredevel7]

If, you think about " stop feedin' " by lettin' her go, then that would be commit murder just like what Michael did to his wife.

In my own eyes, I feel that it is right thing to do by feedin' UNTIL the death takes place thru by natural cause just like Karen Quinlan's case.

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.

 

[Angel]

Who would have thought of " livin' will " ? Not until Terri's life was terminated by her own husband

Right, if it wasn't for Terri Schiavo I wouldn't have known about the "living will".

 

[Angel]

Goes to show how important it is to have that document.

Definitely!

 

[Oceanbreeze]

Who would have thought of " livin' will " ? Not until Terri's life was terminated by her own husband and then, the talks of livin' will began after her death. It affected many people to think about, because of what happened to Terri and that it was wrong of her husband to cut her life short -- that's what it impacted people today....so, therefore, this livin' will became a law when it first created. It was never created before.

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.