First, have a read of this.

So, what would you do, if you were a) her parents, b) her spouse?

Who has more rights over her? Is it her parents or her husband? Being a bit thick, but who would her next of kin be? her parents or her husband. I'm thinking husband here. In which case, should his decision, on behalf of his wife be overulled by her parents?

If my wife (if I were married) was in a similar situation and said she she did not want to be kept alive by artifical means then I would, hard as it might be, have her taken off life support, as to me that would be a humane thing to do. Let her rest in peace.

Maybe it's me, but I don't see what rights her parents have. Yes she is their child BUT she is NOT a child she is 41, and thus she is an adult, so it's not as if there is a parental responsibiltiy as there would be if she was, for example, 16.

So, what is your take on this?

 

Let her die. Political football time.

What I want to know is who has paid for her to live like a vegetable for 15 years and who will continue to pay for many x years from now. If it's the state, then surely there must be a more deserving cause.

I for one wouldn't want to be pillow dribbling for the rest of my unnatural life with furry stuffed animals surrounding my cage/bed.

Fair enough, a certain amount of time should be left after the accident to see if recovery is possible. If recovery is not possible, as it is I assume in this case, then it should be lights off time.

Can't seem to square the *right to life* campaign vis a vis *hang 'em high* mentality, as they both seem to be staunch republican right wing issues.

 

Whether it is right that she lives or dies I don't know. But what I do know is that to bring about someone's death by depriving them of food (i.e. starving them) cannot be humane. We do it in this country, too

 

Carl, that's just what I thought! If your pet's not gonna make it, you don't just stop feeding it!

 

The woman's been in a coma for 15 years, and yet her parents claim "she still has a quality of life". Bollocks. Let the woman die with some dignity.

 

No you put it down.

*Apparently* it's painless.

 

The "remove her feeding tube" thing is a little odd, one assumes it has to be somewhat humane though, as her husband surley would not do something inhumane?

Humane or inhumane, she's not exactly going to complain or care is she? Heartless? quite possibly, but who can tell what she does and does not feel.

 

Yeah and you wouldnt keep "Rover" alive as a vegtable for 15 years either would you?

 

This situation has been ongoing for many years. For a couple years after she first became like this her husband did absolutely everything he could for her, made sure she got whatever treatments might have led her to recover some basic functions. Everything failed, just as the doctors had said from the start.

Her husband and other family members heard her say on a couple of occasions (including a funeral of someone who had been kept alive in a vegetative state) that she didn't want to be kept alive like that. So her views were known and have been accepted by the courts. But she didn't make any formal "living will" type document.

So he decided she should be allowed to die. It must have been a terrible decision to have to make. However her parents didn't agree and so this whole sorry saga has gone on for years.

Many families have to make these types of decisions every day. It's very sad but it should not have been turned into a political issue. I think a large reason why it is so emotive is because Terri Schiavo's eyes are open and it appears like maybe she's smiling. But the doctors say no-one's at home and never will be again.

In cases like this I would say that the thorny issue of euthanasia should be investigated again. Withdrawing the provision of nutrients appears to be more cruel than the administration of a drug which would send her sleep permanently.

 

That's the problem, isn't it? Removing her feeding tube is "allowing her to die naturally" - any chemicals etc injected make it murder. (Just guessing, I haven't followed this at all.)

Anyone seen Million Dollar Baby?

 

I feel she should be allowed to die, If it were me I would want my wife to turn off any machine keeping me alive, But I do think that starving her is not right either, I mean in cases like this an injection should be allowed so the person could just fall asleep, BUT not be treated as murder.
Cheers
Colin

 

I THINK I read somewhere that she cant feel ANYTHING...so in theory no hunger pains, feeling of thirst etc..etc. She has been a vegetable for 15 years...enough is enough.

Enough other fully able people starving to death everyday and know one seem to give a toss about them.

All IMHO.

 

There is an difference between removing treatment (i.e. drugs, food, water etc) and allowing somebody to die and actively doing something to kill them such as administering a drug. As far as I understand it that's the legal perspective anyway. I have no issue with people making their wishes known that they would not want to be kept alive in a PVS and for those wishes to be acted upon within the limits of the law.

 

Let her die IMO...........

 

But many years ago I read an article in New Scientist, about people who've suffered serious injuries (e.g. paralysis). Those who had previously said that if something like that happened to them, they wouldn't want to live, actually found a more positive outlook after it had happened. They'd discovered it wasn't as bad as they imagined, and wanted to continue living.

Now imagine that happening to you: you'd previously expressed a wish to die should something like this happen. THen it does happen, and although it's not great you're happy to live with it. But you're now unable to communicate that information, so the doctors go by your previous wishes and allow you to die. I guess it would take around a week after removal of feeding -- how would that week be for you?

I fail to see how injecting someone with something lethal is murder, but denying them food and water isn't. If I starved my kids to death, I'd be up for a murder charge.

 

I somehow feel it is morally wrong to deliberately allow a person to die regardless of these circumstances. Are they telling the truth when they say that she said would prefer to be allowed to die?

I believe that witholding food from her is the same as if you made a positive action to kill her, ie murder!

The Hippocratic oath would not go along with that, life should always be preserved until it stops naturally. Not giving her food is not a natural death.

Can't understand what is different about "dying with dignity" now by being starved or later of normal natural causes. That term always sounds like an excuse of convenience.

There have been instances also of so called hopeless cases in a coma suddenly recovering. Who can say positively and truthfully that this could not happen in this case?

Les

 

If she has expressed a wish to die if she was ever left in a vegative state then she should be allowed to do so. You certainly wouldnt let an animal suffer like that so why should a human? I would definately not want to live like that. If I ever get to a stage where i cant wipe my own backside or have any control over my body then I want someone to put me down. I never want to be a burden on any of my loved ones. That poor man has looked after her for 15yrs and not been allowed to live his own life. I admire his dedication but he needs his life back and she needs hers ending for everyones sake. Am not being nasty, thats just my opinion.

 

...yet we prosecute people for "assisted suicide" when they take them to clinics in Switzerland for lethal injections. Sounds far more humane than allowing them to starve, IMHO.

 

If she were a somebody's pet, Animal rights activists would be up in arms about the cruelty of keeping her alive.

 

Its a disgrace that with all the medical advances that have been made in years, its being put to use to keep a ' vegetable' alive. Just give her a leathal injection of drugs and put an end to her and her families suffering.

 

The solicitor for the husband asked the parents (in one of the court hearings some years ago) a number of hypothetical questions about what they would be prepared to do to keep her alive.

He asked them if she got a blood clot in her arm and it couldn't be saved, would they permit an amputation. They said yes.

If she had a series of bloodclots in all her limbs would they permit amputations of all limbs. They said yes.

If she had heart problems would they want her to have complex heart surgery. They said yes.

And so it went on. Basically they were prepared to do ANYTHING to keep her alive, irrespective of the quality of life she has (which is zero as she has no brain function, has to be fed via a feeding tube and cannot interact with anyone in any way etc.)

So who is being more caring, the husband or the parents? Legally the husband holds all the cards, he's the legal guardian, her wishes were heard by several people and courts have ruled consistently in his favour. The only problem is this has turned into a political (and religious) issue. The precedent of the US federal govt. stepping into a case which is traditionally the domain of states and family law is worrying lots of people over there.

 

I just don't see what rights her parents actually have. Her legal guardian is her Husband, not her parents, so one would hope this takes precedent over her parents wishes, and so far, the judges have rulled in his favor.

Yes, it's sad to see your child like that, and you'll always be their parents and want the best for them, but we're talking about a 41 year old here, not a 16 year old, it's a little different.

I know that if I was in a coma, had blot clots and ended up with multiple amputations, then magically came out of my coma, I'd be somewhat pissed off and probably ask why they didn't just let me rest in peace, rather than turn me into a multiple amputee, meaning I won't have the same quality of life I was used to.

 

I would be interested to read the exact legal position her husband holds. If the USA is in any way similar to the UK the status of next of kin in such decision making has no (literal) bearing whatsoever. Reference is made to him being her legal guardian I admit.

A next of kin is only that person to whom an estate passes to in the event of death where death is intestate, that is without a will. In hospitals here lots of folk think next of kin is the be all and end all, but it isnt, sadly not enough patients, as this lady did, make formal record of their intentions or identify the persons they feel best able to represent their interests if they are unable to do so themselves. Very tricky one this.

 

Can’t they just give her the lethal injection? That’s supposed to be totally painless, surly it’d be more humane than starving her to death.

 

I would agree with euthanasia in this case. After 15 years of lying in a coma, it is not possible that she could ever make any sort of recovery. Even if she isn't brain dead (although it would seem that she is) the amount of degeneration to the rest of her body would be horrendous.

Why is she being kept alive? Purely because medical science can do it - not necessarily because they should do it.

 

It is not impossible to recover from a coma, however long it has lasted, This has happened often enough in the past even though people have been given up for lost.

The onus is on Medical Science to prolong and maintain life, not to end it. If you start supporting euthanasia because you don't think it will happen to you, then eventually we will all wind up being sent to the "Happy Room" once our useful lives are adjudged to be at an end. Unless you are a good party member of course!

Don't think it could not happen.

Les