This blog is going to be on a very controversial and touchy subject; when, if ever is it OK to turn off life support on a human being? When I refer to life support, I'm including such neccessities as a feeding tube, mechanical respiration, intravenous drips, heart or lung bypass or total parenteral nutritcian. This is one of those issues that will forever be OK with some, and absolutely not OK for others. Some view this as a sin, or murder if you will, while others view it as having mercy on a person.
How many times have we heard about or seen in our media of a court case involving the right to remove somebody from life support? The most recent story that I can think of is of 41 year old Terri Schiavo of Florida. Here's a little background on Terri's case.
"Theresa Marie Schindler "Terri" Schiavo; (December 3, 1963 – March 31, 2005) was American woman who suffered brain damage and became dependent on a feeding tube. She collapsed in her home on February 25, 1990, and experienced respiratory and cardiac arrest, resulting in extensive brain damage, a diagnosis of persistent vegetative state (PVS) and 15 years of institutionalization. In 1998, Michael Schiavo, her husband and guardian, petitioned the Pinellas County Circuit Court to remove her feeding tube. Robert and Mary Schindler, her parents, opposed this, arguing she was still conscious of things and people surrounding her. The court determined that Schiavo would not wish to continue life-prolonging measures. This controversy lasted seven years and included involvement by politicians and numerous advocacy groups, particularly those involved in pro-life or disability rights causes.
Before the local court's decision was carried out, on March 18, 2005, the Floridian Government and the U.S. had passed laws that sought, unsuccessfully, to prevent removal of Schiavo's feeding tube. These events resulted in extensive national and international media coverage. By March 2005, the legal history around the Schiavo case included fourteen appeals and numerous motions, petitions, and hearings in the Florida courts; five suits in the Federal District Court; Florida legislation struck down by the Supreme Court of Florida; a subpoena by a congressional committee to qualify Schiavo for witness protection; Federal Legislation; and four denials of certiorari from the Supreme Court of The United States.
She died at a Pinellas Park Hospice on March 31, 2005, at the age of 41, after almost 14 days without food and water. Some have since maintained that her death constituted judicial murder. Terri's parents alleged that her husband was abusive and that this had led indirectly to her condition. The Florida Department of Children and Families rejected these allegations."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo
How many of you agreed or disagreed with the courts ruling and why?
What about me!?
- Rob Petty
- Wichita (OZ), KS, United States
- I'm originally from Norwalk, CA. about 15 miles south of Los Angeles. Joined US Air Force in 1985 as a KC-135 Crew Chief and just retired in Sep. 2006 after almost 22 years. Married 20 years this Dec. and have 2 wonderful children, well, my son is 22 and my daughter is 19, so I guess they're not children per say... Been working in the aviation field for over 24 years now with Cessna and General Electric being part of that.
9 comments:
Hello via John B.
This sounds like an interesting topic and one which I address regularly in my business as a lawyer who does estate planning, inter alia. From a legal perspective, the issues are certainly complex as they involve multiple competing interests, i.e. the individual, the family, sub-groups of families (think second spouse v. children of first spouse), and society/the state, as well.
The issues also fall withing discrete categories, i.e. legal, secular/ethical, religious/spiritual, to name three, which tend to conflict, as well.
The Schiavo case demonstrates the difficulty of trying to make sense of things, because the first problem is getting every body to play on the same field. Once that happens, then the interests of the various players have to be defined and weighed against each other.
I look forward to your take.
Cheers.
(First of all, LOVE your title. Is it your own concept or borrowed, and if borrowed, from where?)
I am pro-choice across the board. An individual should (if of sound mind and body) have total control of their fate, life, death...
If NOT of sound mind and body, hopefully, in some prior state of mental acuity that individual crafted a living will and/or documents dictating DNR, etc. (I still have not crafted/filed such documents, and I feel very strongly about this!) To me it is a matter of dignity as much as anything else.
About the title of this blog... as I was driving home one night from work, I heard a song on the radio, one I haven't heard in awhile by Ronnie James Dio (80's heavy metal singer from the band "Dio"). The title of this song was "Rainbow in the Dark." It's about a man who was insane and trapped in his own mind. At least that's how I saw it. I thought... "Wow...that would be a great title for this blog." Of course this blog isn't about insane people, but people who are sort of trapped, if you will, inside their own failed bodies. I felt this title was appropriate for this blog and is better than the other title I was going to use which was "Unplugged."
I have not known anyone personally who has experienced being soley dependant on life support, whether conscious or otherwise, so I cant imagine how it would feel to experience this from a relatives point of view.
I have tried to see it from the parents perspective, as I have a daughter of my own and find it extremely difficult, to say the least, about what it must've felt like. Part of me would want to let her go and avoid further suffering and the other part of me would want to hold on until she "came back" to us.
As a lawyer, R. Sherman, do you receive a lot of arguments or disagreements from relatives regarding this issue when planning their loved ones estates?
The short answer to your question is "no," primarily because I owe a duty to the person I'm representing when I draft the documents. I'm not really privy to family discussions which occur when the use of the documents, i.e. a living will, becomes necessary. I will say, the vast majority of time, families agree or reach a consensus on an appropriate course of actions. Cases like Schiavo are rare and they occur where there is a lot of money involved and someone feels s/he is going to get screwed.
As the Romans said, "Radix malorum est cupiditas." - (Avarice is the root of all evil)
Cheers.
I have been contimplating by view of the whole life support issue and when I feel it's appropriate to take someone off or... "pull the plug" if you like harsher terms.
I feel that if somone is not capable of recovering and they are pretty much 100% dependant on a life support method, be it a feeding tube (In Terri Schiavo's case) or an artificial lung and the doctors have declared an individual as "brain dead" then it is appropriate. You have to look at the quality of life standpoint for the affected individual. Allow yourself to see the situation through their eyes. Would you want to continue living in this manner? Would you feel you were a burden on your loved ones? For me, I would want somone to have the mercy and "pull the plug."
I look at this as a quality of life issue and my being dependant on others 100% of the time. Of course, if you're declared brain dead... you would'nt be thinking anything, just starring amelessly at a blank wall.
Anyone else care to share their ideas or views?
One of the practical problems, R. and Rob, is that doctors often can't or won't say if someone is "not capable" of improvement. People can take hang on inexplicably — or take a sudden turn and be gone. And in the meantime, it's very hard for a family member to know where to draw the line. An Alzheimer's patient with terminal cancer breaks a leg trying to get out of bed... do you operate to fix it? OK. But she has a stroke because of the surgery... do you agressively treat that? OK. The brain injury, compounded by the Alzheimer's, left her mumbling, mentally altered, unable to swallow, bedridden... do you put in a feeding tube? OK. She's severely anemic from the cancer. Do you treat that with blood transfusions? And what about the the infection that's beating her suppressed immune system? IV antibiotics? She's in the hospital, so The Line just sneaks up on the family. Thank God for modern medicine and pain control, but 100 years ago, the poor woman would have died at home surrounded by her family without racking up a $100,000 debt. As R. knows, as tough as it is, families need to talk about what they want — and don't want — before the end comes.
That would be a unique subject to bring up during a family get together wouldn't it? I agree with you though, it's something each individual should discuss with their family to let the know what they want done, should they ever be unfortunate enough to be in that position. I, for one would say..."Let me go."
Post a Comment