Hydration, nutrition, and the persistent vegetative state II
A good conversation was launched from the September 18 post, “Hydration, nutrition, and the persistent vegetative state,” and I have been asked to bring it forward to the home page. I’m going to pull a few a few thought provoking comments to continue the discussion….
Erin: [I]f my family didn’t let me die, I’d be pretty ticked…. [I]f someone asks to be taken off of life-support, or says in their living will that they do not wish to be kept alive by artificial means, should their request be granted?… Personally, if I had no mental capacity, if I could not move, think, or feel… I would consider that death.
Jacqueline: My doctoral study is on advanced directives…. MK is right – Living Wills are a scientificly-proven disaster. Even if you don’t have a moral opposition to them, they fail to accomplish their intended purpose. Doctors don’t have to follow them, they are misinterpretted or ignored 99% of the time, they can never predict the details of the situation they speak of, they can be used to condemn you when new, alternative treatments are available – and they tie the hands of your family that will have full knowledge of the situation and your options. Your family might want to consider a new therapy – only they are unable to because you wrote some ambiguous death wish. Furthermore, treatment costs money that states and insurance companies don’t want to pay. They’d sooner enforce the Living Will than let your family attempt to help you….
Erin: Eesh. This topic gives me the heebie jeebies. In my mind, being a vegetable is worse than death, which is probably why this topic weirds me out.
Jacqueline: Well, isn’t that bigotted. You aren’t OWED your brain function and you’re not better than someone who doesn’t have the same cognitive abilities. You are no better than they are. When people spout this shallow drivel, I hear a child screaming, “If I can’t have my pony, I’ll just DIE.”
Furthermore, no human being is ever a VEGETABLE. Human beings are always human beings. Disabled human beings are human beings. Brain injured human beings are human beings. Premature human beings are human beings. Elderly human beings are human beings. Cognitively disabled human beings are human beings. Ill human beings are human beings. Even dead (heart ceases to beat, turns cold) human beings remain human beings.
Calling anyone a vegetable is an offense to mankind. It offends me more than anything else. It makes me want to kick some a**….
Brother Francis: Erin, I notice here that you are shifting the definition of what death is. Death has long been (and at least for now, still is) considered by the medical profession and by popular consensus to be equated with death of the body. If the body is alive, the person is alive, and vice-versa. However, if the definition of death were shifted to something like not being able to move, think, or feel, a Pandora’s box with potential for great evil would be opened….
According to a new definition of death, where people could not “move, think, or feel,” this would produce the very odd situation where significant numbers of people in hospitals would be dead and then return to life. And this would be the course which certain serious conditions normally take. The man I described above would have been dead in your account. And so, that would mean nurses and doctors were skillfully caring for a “dead” man for about three days. What would have happened if someone had deliberately ended his bodily life during this time of medically deliberate suspension of consciousness? Could you prosecute someone for killing a dead man?
Jess: If I was in a persistent vegetated state I would not want to be kept alive by any means. Then my family and friends could use their time, money and energy for something that can appreciate it. Like maybe helping an underprivileged child.
But no one really wants to be a martyr anymore….
Jacqueline: First of all, brain death is not death. That false definition of death was conveniently invented when doctors found ways to transplant organs and needed organs to transplant. You can not take an organ from a dead body, so the lesser, weaker, unworthy folks that couldn’t defend themselves (i.e. the comatose, the PVS) were sacrificed for the “greater good” of saving better, communicative, ambulatory, worthy people. This is murder. This is bigotry. Essentially we’re saying that people with lesser functioning are are lesser than those without and should sacrifice themselves for those “better” people to continue to live their “better” lives….
Brother Francis: The point someone made above about living wills not really doing much to put control in the patient’s hands is very true. The problem is the interpretation of the living will. And if the patient has not designated a particular person of his own choice (via a health care proxy/durable power of attorney), guess who gets to interpret what the living will means?–the doctors and the hospital administration. And they do not necessarily have to listen to anyone else, including family and friends of the patient.
Jacqueline:: I’m not going down this path- You people redefine life and death to suit yourselves. It’s not life if you want to abort it. It’s not life when you want to euthanize it. You have no moral compass- so how can I begin to appeal to your non-functioning consciences?…
I think I need to retire from this conversation. I love Terri and know her family. Listening to ignorant (and morally bankrupt) people defend her 13-day murder is too much for me.
In conclusion, you pro-aborts will attack anyone defenseless if it suits you- the unborn, the elderly, the ill, the disabled. Stop being such cowards! Pick on someone with a fighting chance. Like me, for example. I’d like to see you try that suction machine, currette, starvation crap with me.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Why is it that these people always target the weakest and most helpless of all? Cowards.
Found this online, when I was looking up more information about Kate Adamson:
Kate Adamson appeared on the Fox News Channel program “The O’Reilly Factor” to relate that she was diagnosed as being in a vegetative state and, like Terri Schiavo, her feeding tube was removed, only to be reinserted after eight days after her lawyer-husband threatened to sue the hospital if they did not reinsert it. Adamson also refuted the testimony of Terri’s husband Michael Schiavo who suggested that PVS patients do not feel the pain of starvation.
Host Bill O’Reilly asked Adamson, “So you were feeling pain when they removed your tube?” She responded, “Yes. Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. To say that — especially when Michael [Schiavo] on national TV had mentioned last week that it’s a pretty painless thing to have the feeding tube removed. It is the exact opposite. It was sheer torture, Bill.”
If only Terri Schiavo’s husband had cared about her, like Kate’s husband cared about her. Terri could have come out of her state and lived to tell about it like Kate did.
http://katesjourney.com/articles.html
The doctors said she was PVS too.
Of course, if Terri Schiavo’s husband had cared about her, he wouldn’t have put her in that state to begin with.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again…
Basing your moral standards on science is a fools path. Yesterdays science is fodder for horror novels. Today’s science is tomorrows joke. Tomorrows science is the punch line.
I’m not bashing science, and I recognize the need to build on previous findings. I’m just saying that to base your moral standards on something so changeable is to basically have no moral standard at all.
Some have claimed that the unborn aren’t sentient so they are not persons. Yet we have posted new evidence, some which came out just this week, to show that we now believe the unborn are far more aware than we ever thought. This evidence was completely unbiased as it was research for autism and had nothing to do with prolife/prochoice.
In this case, morality was based on lack of scientific evidence. Does new scientific evidence mean new moral standards? If so, then how moral, were the morals before the new evidence.
Human life is sacred. That is not scientific fact. That is just a necessary belief in order to have a civilized and ordered society. Once human life stops being sacred, the next life that becomes expendable could be yours…
Amen, MK!
Thank You Bobby.
Would you mind sending me a “God Love you Mary Kay”?
I could use a boost this morning!
I want a ‘God love you’ too, it always makes my day.
Well, God love you, Mary Kay! I’ll offer up prayers for you as well.
And God love you, your husband, and three beautiful children, Bethany.
Aww thank you, Bobby!! :)
Hey Jacqueline.
“First of all, brain death is not death.”
I don’t know too much about this stuff, but there is this short article by one of my heroes Father Tad Pacholczyk where he seems to say that brain death is in fact death. I may not be understanding what he or you is saying, but if you get a chance, could you read it and let me know if you agree with it or how you understand things? Like I said, I know nearly nothing about this stuff, so anything you can share is appreciated. God love you, Jacqueline.
Thank you Bobby and God Love you too!
Father Tad is a great man, and I know that I am no one to oppose him, yet, I have had many disagreements in bio-ethics because he doesn’t look politically about the implications of isolated incidents. Most notably, he sided with a hospital’s attempt to deny care to a sick baby boy (against the mothers’ wishes) citing that removal of care was morally acceptable in that boys’ particular case. What he forgot was that even in cases where the Church agrees that removal of care is moral, the catechism clearly states that this decision belongs to the FAMILY, not a hospital with vested economic interests. In fact, his support of removing care from Emilio Gonzales was used to thwart a Futile Care reform effort, and because of that, Texans still live in a state where hospitals can deny you food/water/antibiotics/ad nausuem if you cost too much money or “your life just isn’t worth living.” His research is on bioethics and mine is on euthanasia policy. One is precise and the other is holistic.
cont.
Now, I read Father Tad’s article and I disagree completely. Living people are not corpses. If they weren’t alive, it wouldn’t be necessary to kill them, and killing a living person to procure their organs is morally unacceptable. I am waiting for the Church to make this declaration (like I am waiting for the pro-life movement to oppose egg donation- certain things haven’t quite hit our radar).
Case in point: An ectopic pregnancy. Ectopic pregnancies can be treated by killing the baby directly and preserving the fallopian tube (for the sake of fertility). Ectopic pregnancies can also be treated by removing the whole tube. The latter is the only morally acceptable answer- because we can not go in and purposefully destroy the baby. This is Catholic teaching. It’s 100% correct.
Likewise, even “brain dead” people can not be purposefully destroyed by vivisection. To remove machines and let natural death occur is one thing. To slice open and individual and kill them by removing their heart and lungs is quite another. That is not a natural death. Killing a “brain dead” person is not less reprehensible than killing a terminally ill person than killing a healthy person. We are never allowed to intentionally kill innocent human life.
Like the Church values fertility but can not waiver in the case of ectopic pregnancies to allow the intentional destruction of a child, the Church values of mercy and saving lives through organ donation can not waiver to allow the intentional destruction of a human being.
And I must ask Fr. Tad, why the hurry? If it’s only morally acceptable to remove care from truly “brain dead” individuals, and those individuals will die of natural causes in a relatively short period of time anyway, why the hurry to kill them? Why not let nature take it’s course? Like I tell pro-aborts and assisted suicide propenents that want to destroy terminally ill human beings, why the hurry to kill them when they are dying prematurely as is? Does their imminent death gives us the license to kill them? I emphatically say NO. Once again, we are never allowed to intentionally kill innocent human life.
I forgot- GOD LOVE YOU, BOBBY! :)
Jacque said: “(like I am waiting for the pro-life movement to oppose egg donation- certain things haven’t quite hit our radar)”
Pro-lifers I know oppose it. Concerned Women for America opposes it as exploitive toward women. Do you not think mainline pro-life orgs have taken a stand against it? Maybe they haven’t? Maybe they’re neutral, like they are on contraception?
Seems like wrongful imprisonment.
If you believe that there is consciousness there, then in what way could that person possible feel anything other than sorrow? They live in a prison where they cannot speak, move, or think. It must be torture.
Do you not think mainline pro-life orgs have taken a stand against it?
Pro-lifers I know are oblivious to it. I’ve never heard of a pro-life group making any mention of it until now. CWA- I didn’t know that they condemned it! Go them! But my reasons for opposing it go beyound exploitation. I oppose it because it creates and kills children (like IVF), which is why I think pro-lifers shoudl oppose it. I’m surprised Feminists for Life hasn’t said anything about it.
I can’t wait to hear the court decision today. I’m praying!
If you believe that there is consciousness there, then in what way could that person possible feel anything other than sorrow? They live in a prison where they cannot speak, move, or think. It must be torture.
I’m not implying that there is consciousness there. What I’m saying is that consciousness is completely irrelevant to someone being allowed to live. Conscious or unconscious, male or female, deaf or hearing, sleeping or waking, young or old- humans are humans regardless of their condition. All deserve to live their natural lives.
Hi Jacqueline. Thanks for all the info. Lots for me to think about…
“…pro-life movement to oppose egg donation”
Have you seen http://handsoffourovaries.com/ ? It has both pro-life and pro-choice supporters. There are sooooo many problems with egg donation, and I think if we all really learn the facts, opposing egg donation is something most of us should be able to get behind. God love you.
There is a difference between killing someone and allowing them to die. If a family sees a brain dead person and removes life support, then it will lead them to irreversable cardiac and pulmonary function. But ultimately the cause of death is the cause of the brain death. The cause of death is not the direct action of the person.
“Why is it that these people always target the weakest and most helpless of all? Cowards.”
How are we targeting them? Did I put anyone in a coma or vegetated state ever? Why should we be forced to go out of our way to keep someone alive when we know they are suffering without any hope?
I feel that a person’s living will should be honored. I will be extremely upset if mine isn’t. I’m sorry, but this is how I feel on this issue. My father battled cancer. He wanted to die at home in bed. We allowed him to do so.
I should also add that my dad was in the hospice program.
How are we targeting them? Did I put anyone in a coma or vegetated state ever? Why should we be forced to go out of our way to keep someone alive when we know they are suffering without any hope?
“You” target them because they have no voice. No way of telling you what they want. Just like the unborn children. You decide that you can play God and decide for them that they want death, rather than giving them the benefit of life, when in fact they really may want to live.
That is how “you” (as a collective whole) target them.
It wasn’t “going out of the way” to keep Terri alive. Her family was MORE than willing to take care of her (giving her the BASIC needs EVERY human needs to survive) for the rest of her natural life, no matter what the cost.
And they weren’t keeping her alive by artificial means either. She was perfectly healthy, and only needed food and water to survive.
There is a difference between killing someone and allowing them to die. If a family sees a brain dead person and removes life support, then it will lead them to irreversable cardiac and pulmonary function. But ultimately the cause of death is the cause of the brain death. The cause of death is not the direct action of the person.
If I took food and water away from my children for 13 days till they died, would I be actively killing them or just “letting them die”?
Saint Stephen, Protomartyr, was stoned and some 2,000 other Christians suffered at the time of Stephen’s persecution, c. 35 A.D.
James the Great (Son of Zebedee) was beheaded in 44 A.D.
Philip the Apostle was crucified in 54 A.D.
Matthew the Evangelist killed by a halberd in 60 A.D.
James the Just, beaten to death by a club after being crucified and stoned.
Matthias was stoned and beheaded.
Saint Andrew, St. Peter’s brother, was crucified.
Mark was beaten to death.
Saint Peter, crucified upside-down.
Apostle Paul, beheaded in Rome.
Saint Jude was crucified.
Saint Bartholomew was crucified.
Thomas the Apostle was killed by a spear.
Luke the Evangelist was hanged.
Simon the Zealot was crucified in 74 A.D.
(Note: John the Evangelist according to legend was cooked in boiling hot oil but survived. He was the only one of the original twelve Apostles who was not martyred).
Ignatius of Antioch in 107 A.D.
Polycarp of Smyrna, probably around 160 A.D.
Justin Martyr of Palestine in 168 A.D.
The Martyrs of Scili (in North Africa, about 180 A.D.) The Passio Sanctorum Scilitanorum is regarded as the oldest Christian text in the Latin language.
Perpetua and Felicity of Carthage in 202 A.D.
Origen of Alexandria, about 250 A.D.
Saint Januarius of Naples, Italy in 305 A.D
Saint Philomena of Corfu, Greece (died in Rome) about 305 A.D
Ludmila of Bohemia, 921
King Edward the Martyr, 979
Stanislaus of Szczepan
Jess, wow. What a twisted way to look at that.
Jess, those people were killed by EVIL men, and yet had hope in a Savior and knew that once they died, they would have a home in Heaven to look forward to.
I am frankly pretty surprised that this is your idea of proof that Christians love death. That others killed us and we love Jesus? That’s why we love death?
Christianity is about VICTORY OVER DEATH.
55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? 56 The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. 57 But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
“If I took food and water away from my children for 13 days till they died, would I be actively killing them or just “letting them die”? ”
Bethany, you are missing my point, and I explained it thoroughly on the other thread.
A. In PVS, it is sort of a gray area but I think only the person involved could decide. If there is a living will that said, “If I am in a PVS, please let me die,” that should be honored. It’s called patient’s rights.
B. Schaivo’s case I can’t comment on b/c I don’t know much about it.
C. “Allowing to die” refers to people that are, for lack of a better word, dying, in the near future. For example, if someone has terminal cancer and says “I don’t want treatment” then they die of the disease. When you die of the DISEASE you are dying naturally. You are allowing someone to die. If the patient (or proxy is necessary) wants this, we can’t make them get treatment.
D. Food and nutrition being withheld is not really the same as allowing someone to die because they die of starvation, not the disease. But, a feeding tube is still a medical treatment, and again, we can’t force someone to be treated, and if they express a desire to be removed, we have to honor their wishes.
“Allow me to be eaten by the beasts
I love it when non-Christians tell me what Christianity is about. LOL
…or should I say anti-Christians.
How am I a non-Chriatian or anti-Christian? Christianity is a lot harsher then you realize. Didn’t Saint Peter say suffer not a woman to teach? If you are a Christian don’t try to lecture us. Be humble, know your place.
LOL Jess, you are obviously an anti-Christian. That’s a no brainer.
Peter? And no, it wasn’t Peter who said that, it was Paul, and I’ve already posted an explanation for that chapter which many take out of context to mean something it doesn’t. I can pull that info up for you, if you’d like.
I am a protestant, just to let you know. Never heard of Ignatius till you mentioned him.
I simply believe in the Bible and what it says.
I hate it when people warp Christianity to suit their needs. God is about fear and punishment. Real Christians should be afraid.
I hate it when people warp Christianity to suit their needs.
I agree. I think it’s wrong. I wish you’d stop doing it.
The whole Bible, all of it, even the old testament?
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
Romans 5:8, “But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.”
“Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love. In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another.” (1 John 4:7-11)
1
1 Praise the LORD, who is so good; God’s love endures forever;
2
Praise the God of gods; God’s love endures forever;
3
Praise the Lord of lords; God’s love endures forever;
4
Who alone has done great wonders, God’s love endures forever;
5
Who skillfully made the heavens, God’s love endures forever;
6
Who spread the earth upon the waters, God’s love endures forever;
7
Who made the great lights, God’s love endures forever;
8
The sun to rule the day, God’s love endures forever;
9
The moon and stars to rule the night, God’s love endures forever;
10
Who struck down the firstborn of Egypt, God’s love endures forever;
11
And led Israel from their midst, God’s love endures forever;
12
With mighty hand and outstretched arm, God’s love endures forever;
13
Who split in two the Red Sea, God’s love endures forever;
14
And led Israel through, God’s love endures forever;
15
But swept Pharaoh and his army into the Red Sea, God’s love endures forever;
16
Who led the people through the desert, God’s love endures forever;
17
Who struck down great kings, God’s love endures forever;
18
Slew powerful kings, God’s love endures forever;
19
Sihon, king of the Amorites, God’s love endures forever;
20
Og, king of Bashan, God’s love endures forever;
21
And made their lands a heritage, God’s love endures forever;
22
2 A heritage for Israel, God’s servant, God’s love endures forever.
23
The LORD remembered us in our misery, God’s love endures forever;
24
Freed us from our foes, God’s love endures forever;
25
And gives food to all flesh, God’s love endures forever.
26
Praise the God of heaven, God’s love endures forever.
The whole Bible, all of it, even the old testament?
Of course. But not an anti-Christian’s interpretation of it.
Why are you a protestant why aren’t you Catholic? The original apostles founded the Catholic Church.
“Never heard of Ignatius till you mentioned him. ”
Oh Bethany, you’re missing out! He’s the MAN! Jess gave a beautiful quote by him. You should look into it. One of the very early Christian martyrs, early 2nd century I believe. God love you.
I’m not going to get into a protestant/Catholic debate with you, Jess.
I believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God. That’s all you need to know.
I hate it when people warp Christianity to suit their needs.
Why? You apparently hate Christianity, so why care if you think it’s misrepresented?
By the way, I know God. He is a God of love and mercy. You shouldn’t talk badly about someone you do not know.
Thanks Bobby, I’ll look into it. :)
Jess- why do you want to invoke a Protestant/Catholic debate when in either case, you’re apostate?
Pot. Kettle. Black.
I hate who you people just assume I don’t pray or believe in God and yes I was baptized Catholic but none of you believe that. I pray often. I think very deeply about religous and moral matters. God knows me, and I know God. God is everywhere, even in me. I’m Gods child too, just like you. Maybe God even cares about me a little extra because I need it. Remember how the shepherd left his flock of 99 to search for the lamb that went missing.
And I was not trying to hurt your feelings or mock your faith.
MSNBC – 2005
Schiavo autopsy shows irreversible brain damage
LARGO, Fla. – An autopsy on Terri Schiavo backed her husband
I hate who you people just assume I don’t pray or believe in God and yes I was baptized Catholic but none of you believe that. I pray often. I think very deeply about religious and moral matters. God knows me, and I know God. God is everywhere, even in me. I’m Gods child too, just like you. Maybe God even cares about me a little extra because I need it. Remember how the shepherd left his flock of 99 to search for the lamb that went missing.
I find that difficult to believe, not because of who you are, but because of the way you openly mocked my beliefs which are based on the Bible, God’s word.
I thought you said God was only interested in fear and judgement? Why do you realize his caring side only when it suits you?
I agree with you. God cares a LOT about you. But I don’t see how you can say He isn’t a loving God in one breath, then say he is in the next.
And I was not trying to hurt your feelings or mock your faith.
Well you did a good job of it regardless of if your intent was to or not. But if this is an apology, I accept your apology.
Remember how the shepherd left his flock of 99 to search for the lamb that went missing.
Isn’t that a sweet testimony to God’s love for us? Doesn’t sound like a God about fear and punishment to me. Sounds like a loving Father searching for his child.
If you know God, stop blastpheming Him by suggesting that He’s for killing the weak (unborn, ill, etc.) and claiming that He glorifies death. He DEFEATED death on our behalf. If you know Him, you know none of what you say is true.
Doug, I’m copying and pasting this again for you, so you won’t miss it. I posted it in the last one, but it was already in the archives. Sorry it’s so long.
I’m going to paste some of the info that a commenter (James) had posted regarding the Terri Schiavo case in the other thread about her. He is an expert on Terri’s case, and I think that the information he posted is very important for everyone to read.
******************
We have seen the Clear and Convincing Evidence that used to condemn Terri to death. Of course there some very trouble facts surrounding these alleged wishes:
Michael waited 8 after the fact before stating that Terri Schiavo would not want a feeding tube.
While Michael did say in 1993 depo that Terri wouldn’t want to live in such a condition, at around the same time Michael was asked about the prospect of removing the feedinh tube. Michael’s response was “I couldn’t do that to Terri.”
Michael’s claims were in direct contradiction to Michael’s sworn testimony and commitments said at the 1992 Mal Trial.
Although, Michael claims he still had hope at the time Terri might recover, Michael was suing for 20 Million dollars.
The the value of suit based on the doctor’s failure to diagnosis Terri correctly was derived from expert witnesses on Michael’s behalf that estimated that Terri would live to around the age of 50. To that end, her condition would require purchasing a special house and van for her needs. Terri would also need expensive rehab and nursing care too. All of this was caculated to be around 20 Million dollars.
When Michael submitted his 1998 petition to remove the feeding tube, Michael had made his intentions clear that intended to marry Jodi.
It was also determined that around $750,000 existed in Terri’s trust and Michael was sole heir of it when she died.
GAL Pearse investigated, and discovered Michael’s financial conflict. GAL Pearse, not Michael Schiavo suggested he set up a charity offer to separate himself from the conflict.
Michael set up the charity offer but it had special stipulations.
It required the Schindlers to drop their suit and side with Michael.
This was something that Schindler simply would not do and went against their core believe on the removal of the feeding tube.
Michael would not donate the money to charity unless the Schindlers sided with them.
If the court made the decision, which it did, Michael was under no legal obilgation to donate the money.
At the time the decision was made in 2000 (This is a fundemental key point), Michael was set to inherit $750,000 with no legal obligation to donate the money.
Neither the Schindlers or Michael knew the case would last another 5 years. Michael even wrote that he was suprised to learn that the Schindlers could appeal the decision.
As why Michael refused money bribes in 2005…..
To many people became involved in the case and it was about pushing the agenda.
Felos even told Michael when he considered giving up, that case wasn’t about Terri anymore…it was about the agenda.
The Doctors and Terri Schiavo
At time of Terri’s death, the Schindlers had nearly 40 doctors on the record who stated that Terri wasn’t PVS or new testing was needed to confirm her diagnosis.
Many of these doctors relied soley on the video tape clips and their own personal experiences and expertise in brain injury and PVS.
However, several doctors did manage to examine Terri or at least observe her and many did see her medical records (at least some of them). Take Dr. Sara Mele for instance who was able see Terri medical records from Medaplex.
Michael and his confederates undercut the Schindler’s 40 docs by stating that many of them never examined Terri and only relied on the video tape clips.
However, Michael neglects one critical fact that was never pointed out; Michael would not let any doctors to examine Terri (Schinder docs).
In fact, Michael got a court order which prevented any Schindler doc from examining Terri or conducting any tests on her.
This was part of Michael and Felos’s plan to prevent the Schindlers from upsetting the PVS diagnosis (which was critical in insuring Terri’s death) and getting her treatment.
Michael could always use the defense and he did, that they didn’t examine Terri when in fact Michael prevented them from examining Terri.
Dr. Hammersfar and several docs wanted to examine Terri in 2001, but Michael prevented it and Dr. Hammersfar was only able to examine her when the Appeals Court ordered it (during that time Michael petitioned 2 times to have Terri killed).
But when we examine the examination factor, we see that it is quite weak. Observe:
Dr. Barnhill – Examined Terri for 10 minutes one time and I believe for 1 hour another time.
Dr. Karp – Examined Terri for 1 hour.
Dr. Cranford – Examined Terri for 45 minutes.
Dr. Greer – Examined Terri for 30 minutes
Dr. Bambakidis – Examined Terri for 30 minutes
Dr. Gambone – Examined her for 1 hour once and 10 minutes every 4 mouths after that.
Total Time of examinations over 4 or 5 year period – A little more than 5 hours.
The earlier docs did examine her (Dr. Barras, Dr. De Sousa) much more extensively in the early years, but back then the MCS wasn’t widely known and was never revisited by those docs.
I will agree the early docs probably had great deal insight into Terri’s condition. After Dr. Barnhill, examinations of Terri were quite weak and the MCS diagnosis became much more well known. However, Terri was never given to most advanced tests to confirm this diagnosis and the autopsy (Dr. Nelson reported it) did say that Terri could have been MCS.
Several Doctors did observe her and deemed her not PVS or questionalable PVS:
Dr. Cheshire – Obeserved Terri for 90 minutes. Saw her medical records and uneditted video tapes.
Dr. Avery – Obeserved Terri for 30 minutes.
Dr. Carpenter – Observed Terri for 30 minutes
Dr. Young – Observed Terri for 30 minutes.
2 Doctors did run examinations on her:
Dr. Hammersfahr – Examined Terri for over 3 hours.
Dr. Maxfield – Examined Terri for nearly 3 hours. Some argue the Dr. Maxfield was a radiologist conducting a neurological examination. However, Dr. Gambone wasn’t a neurologist either and conducted a neurological examination in much less time. Both had full disclosure to Terri’s medical history.
Between Hammersfahr and Maxfield Terri was examined longer than all of Michael’s other doctors combined.
Also the following caregivers were able to make observations too:
Carla Iyer
Heidi Law
Carolyn Johnson
Trudy Capone
You also have the following people who questioned PVS:
Fr. Molnowski
Bob Schindler, Mary Schindler, Suzanne Schindler, and Bobby Schindler
Pat Anderson, Tom Boderson (speech therapist) and David Gibbs
Michael resisted any testing needed to further confirm her diagnosis even though the Schindlers pleaded adamantly that Terri needed further testing based on dozens of affidavits from doctors accross the country.
Later, Michael claimed he wanted an autopsy to prove to the world the extent of Terri’s brain damage.
Michael resisted any and all efforts to have Terri further diagnosised but after she was dead had no problem have different tests performed on her to prove her diagnosis.
Some Argue that Terri’s CT Scan showed clear evidence of Terri’s PVS Diagnosis. While a CT scan does show structural damage, a CT scan can only provide little into functional ability of a damaged brain. A bad CT scan does not automatically mean a person is PVS.
Some argue that Terri had 3 EEGs and they were all flat. Terri’s EEGs were not flat but were abnormal. Several of EEGs may have not been completely accurate because of artifact.
Some argue that the autopsy proved Terri’s brain was mush. While autopsy did report severe brain damage,it did report the cognitive areas of Terri’s brain were intact. Dr. Thogmartin also could not determine what effect 13 days of dehydration had on the shrinkage of Terri’s brain or her brain damage.
It should also be noted that Karen Ann Queilan was also PVS. However, her brain damage was focused on her thalmus and not the cerebral cortext. With Terri it was reversed. Terri’s cerebral cortex was damaged, but Terri’s thalmus was fairly intact (there was still damage). Scientists are beginning to understand that the Thalmus might play more active role in human consciousnes.
In a final note, Terri was never examined again after the 2002 trial even though radical new testing had become available that could have answered many troubling questions experts voiced about her condition.
Terri’s wishes – Everyone is saying that there was Clear and Convincing Evidence that Terri Schiavo would have wanted the feeding tube to be removing. However, reviewing these facts put heavy clout on Terri’s so-called wishes.
1. Terri Collapses in 1990.
2. In 1992, the Mal Trial is held.
3. Michael testfies the following – “I believe in the vows that I took with my wife,
___
28
1 through sickness, in health, for richer or poorer. I
2 married my wife because I love her and I want to spend the
3 rest of my life with her. I’m going to do that.”
4. It during this time Michael states to 3 different people (Trudy Capone, Cindy Shook, Fran Casler) that he does not know what Terri’s wishes are or even what he should do with her (what are his future plans).
5. Michael is awarded $300,000 LOC and Terri is awarded $750,000.
6. Michael and the Schindlers have a fight.
7. Michael goes to Terri’s doctor. He says she isn’t going to recover.
8. Micheal gets a new girlfriend and is the inheritor of Terri’s $750,000.
9. Michael now believes that Terri Schiavo doesn’t want to live in her condition and orders a UTI refusal pursuant to her death (Under the doctor’s advice).
10. When Michael is asked about removing Terri’s feeding tube, Michael responds – “I can’t do that to Terri.”
11. Between 1993 and 1995 the first guardianship suit occurs.
12. Days after the suit ends in 1995, Michael does the second UTI refusal. He is unsucessful.
13. At the end of 1995, Michael contacts George Felos through his attorney Deb Bushnell.
14. For the next 1.5 years, legal actions are taken. Michael signs a contact with Felos.
15. July 1997 – Michael mom dies.
16. August 1997 – Felos sends a letter to Bob Schindler about Terri’s feeding tube removal.
17. May 1998 – The first petition is submitted.
18. GAL Pearse investigates – He askes Michael; “We there others”(Terri’s wishes). Michael says no.
19. December 1998 – GAL Pearse submits his report. Michael is conflicted and his claims are not credible.
20. June 1999 – GAL Pearse is discharged on advice from Felos. No other GAL is appointed.
21. September 1999 – Scott and Joan Schiavo come forward and state they know Terri’s wishes after being contacted by Felos.
22. 2000 Trial – Scott and Joan and Michael testify to Terri’s wishes. Scott and Joan claim they never told Michael anything over the 9 year period.
Posted by: james [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 31, 2007 7:54 PM
The Following is review of the Clear and Convincing Evidence used to condemn Terri to death:
Michael Schiavo:
Train Trip wish – Terri told Michael when she was 22 years old that if she ever became a burden (disabled), she wouldn’t want to live like that. The substance of what Terri’s actually said, varies from the different testimonies Michael has given.
TV Wish – A couple of times when watching TV, Terri said to Michael – Who would want to live like that (referring to life support programs.)?
Scott Schiavo:
Terri shared her opinion at a luncheon with Scott that she objected being ever put on ventilator is she at the end of her life (she is dying).
Joan Schiavo:
Was watching a TV program with Joan about a man in coma after diving accident a reportly voiced objection about being allowed to live in such a state. Interestingly, while Joan claimed to discuss elements of the movie, Joan testifed 3 different times that could not remember the movie.
This is all the Clear and Covincing Evidence that there was.
Terri never made any mention of not wanting to be kept alive in PVS state.
Terri never asked for a feeding tube to be removed.
The Clear and Convincing standard is very high.
David Bryer was a patient in Pinellis County, Florida who exactly like Terri Schiavo. He was PVS and I believe his wife went to court to remove the feeding tube.
In 2002, David Bryer died. I do not know if his feeding tube was removed or he died of natural causes.
Apparently though, there was trial on this matter in front of Judge Seth Walker (now retired).
Judge Walker was a pro-life judge and refused to remove his feeding tube.
Diana Lynne in her book Terri’s Story presents a piece of his opinion.”You feed goldfish.””This court must give deference to human life, no matter its state. The lack of medical [“probability”] of neurological improvement is insufficient to command its termination. We must feed David Bryer.”
I don’t know if the Clear and Convincing evidence was met in that case but it should be noted that Felos believed the feeding tube should have been removed anyway from Terri Schiavo in light of best interest (In case the Clear and Convincing evidence did not exist.)
It should also be noted that Judge Seth Walker was known for his pro-life religious views. Judge Walker was in the St. Petersburg Division.
In 1997, Felos sought to get case taken out of the St. Petersburg division and placed in the Clearwater Division.
This probably because Felos did not want to take a chance of Judge Walker preciding over the Schiavo case.
Felos was successful and ultimately the case was heard in front of Judge Greer instead of Judge Walker.
Too bad for Terri Schiavo.
She may been spared if Judge Walker heard the case.
http://www.centerforajustsociety.org/uploads/terri012905.mp3
This is an old interview in which Ken Connor talks to John Sipos. 20 Minutes long. Very Good
Talking Points
– Terri has not recieved due process equal to that of convicted mass murderers and yet has recieved a death sentence.- Terri Schiavo never recieved independent counsel
– Terri death sentence is cruel and unsual punishment that would be unconstitutional if given to a death row inmate.- The Florida Supreme court never reviewed to case related to removal of the feeding tube (Judge Baird Order related to it) only the constitutionality over Terri’s Law – They were trying to protect their own turf.- Ted Bundy recieved more due process than Terri Schiavo.- Terri never had a GAL at the time the decision was made to remove the feeding tube.- Judge Greer served as advocate and adujucaitor in the Guardianship court – The Schindler’s lawyers weren’t able to challenge or cross examine Judge Greer.
Connor ends on the note that Terri Schiavo never received independent counsel or a trial by Jury.
http://theempirejournal.com/extras/siposanderson052905.mp3
Pat Anderson Speaks after Terri Schiavo’s death. About 30 minutes long.
http://www.ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/resolve.asp?rafile=wo_02182005.rm
David Gibbs and Bob Schindler are interviewed in February 2005. About 1 hour long. Very good.
http://www.ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/resolve.asp?rafile=wo_06172005.rm
Bobby Schiavo and Lawyer Michael Gayor discuss Terri after she dies and the legalities and problems with it.
Posted by: james at March
Under Felos’s examination, Joan testified to the following:
A. Yeah, We watched a movie one time on television. It was about somebody. I don’t remember. I don’t remember the movie.
Joan testfied that she and Terri watched a movie but Joan says she doesn’t remember the movie.
Given that Joan Schiavo suddenly remembered the movie memory after 9 years, this is not suprising.
However, in the testimony paragraph, Joan seems to give contradictory statements regarding her statement that she said she didn’t remember the movie
“It was about a guy who had an accident and he was in a coma. There was no help for him”
This statement directly follows her statement that she didn’t remember the movie. This sound contradictory.
Later when being questioned by Campbell, Joan’s memory suddenly starts to improve despite her repeated claims that she doesn’t remember the movie
Q. Can you describe the scene in the movie with the man and the tubes?
A. He was a younger man. I don’t remember the movie. If I’m not mistaken, it was diving accident in the pool. He passed away at the end of the movie of the movie. I don’t remember the movie. I really don’t remember the movie.
Joan repeatly claims she doesn’t remember the movie and yet she can recall the it was a diving accident and the man died at the end. Joan also recalls other details about the movie
A. In the movie he was in a hospital setting.
Q. Do you recall where the tubes were coming from?
A. His mouth. He had some in his arm.
Joan just testified she didn’t remember the movie. I find very convenient and suspect that Joan could only recall the part where Terri made her alleged comments. This was after 9 years.
During that time I gently spoke to her, built rapport and trust, sang
to her, played music for her, and encouraged her to vocalize. Over the
twenty days or so that I visited with Terri, I observed that, while
Terri is distrustful of strangers, she gradually warmed up to me (and
not so gradually after Bob, Mary and I sang “Those Were the Days” to
her as a trio!). Terri responds to a variety of stimulii, including
responding to both her mother’s and my voices, both in person and over
the phone, by fixing her attention and frequently by laughing. When I
sang to her, she often VOCALIZED, in her best effort to sing along with
me. She recognizes and takes great pleasure in certain singers and
songs which ARE her favorites (most especially John Denver
singing “Country Roads”). She learned to love several songs I sang to
her with which she didn’t seem to be familiar with, but others she
never learned to appreciate (just not her cup of tea, obviously). She
responded to gentle requests if given time and patience, such as
lifting her right leg (three times out of four requests, the other time
she lifted her left leg instead). While she does not have consistent
control over her eyes to blink or look this way or that, she has
excellent control over her breathing, diaphram and voice, and will
vocalize
in various patterns if asked. While trying to work out a yes/no system
with sounds, Terri initially answered the question “Terri, are you ten
feet tall” by moaning twice, which is the response for “No,” then she
spontaneously whispered the word “No” in response to the question
“Terry,
are you purple?”. At that point I abandoned the sounding system and
started
trying to teach her to say “Yeah” as best as she could. Bob Schindler
has several recordings of her sort of saying the word “Yeah” shortly
after that.
Unfortunately, I was then taken off Terri’s visitors list, but on
successive occasions (as recently as last October, approximately two
years since I last saw her in person), when her father placed
a phone to Terri’s ear so I could talk to her, she laughed as soon
as she heard my voice, andtried to sing along with me when I sang
to her over the phone.
Terri is not just “in there,” she is very responsive, she loves music,
and she is my friend.
Posted by: james at March 31, 2007 7:52 AM
Five Different Stories
Michael has given 5 different stories regarding Terri’s collapse. Lets look at each story.
Story #1 1992 Depo
Michael says he came home around 12:30am or 1:00am. He says that Terri was not up and woke up when he climbed into bed. Terri says good night to him. Next Michael claims he was getting out of bed FOR SOME REASON around 5:00am and hears Terri collapse. He runs to her sees her lying ON HER BACK. Michael says he was holding Terri trying to wake her up but couldn’t. Michael goes and calls 911. He goes back continues to hold Terri. Next Michael calls Bobby Schindler andhe arrives few minutes later. The paramedics arrive shortly after that.
Story #2 1992 Mal Trial
Michael says he came home around 11:30pm or 12:00am. Now Michael claims he doesn’t recall whether Terri was up or not and whether he talked to Terri or not.
Story # 3 2000 Trial
Michael claims he came home late. Now Michael claims that Terri woke up and heard him. Terri says good night to him. Next Michael claims he was getting out of bed FOR SOME REASON and he hears Terri fall. He goes over to her and he says she is ON HER STOMACH. He rolls her over. He can’t wake her up. Michael goes and calls Bobby Schindler and then goes back to Terri. He holds Terri. He rocks her. A few minutes later Bobby Schindler shows up.
Story #4 Larry King Interview 2003
Michael claims he came home around 2:00am. Michael climbs into bed. Terri wakes up and says good night to him and gives him a kiss. Next Michael claims around 4:30am, he woke FOR SOME REASON and he hears Terri fall. He goes over to Terri and rolls her over. He holds her in his arms and tries to shake her up. He calls 911. He calls Bobby Schindler. A few minutes later the paramedics arrive.
Story #5 Michael’s Book
Michael claims he arrives home around 12:30am or 1:00am. Michael climbs into bed. Terri wakes up. Terri says Hello and says “I love you.” She kisses him and says good night. Around 5:30am, Michael wakes up TO USE THE BATHROOM. He hears Terri collapse. He goes over to her. He rolls her over. He goes and calls 911. He goes back to Terri. Now Michael claims HE CALLED TERRI’S PARENTS. He goes back to Terri. Next Michael calls Bobby Schindler. He goes back to Terri. A few minutes later, Bobby Schindler shows up.
Posted by: James at March 31, 2007 7:49 AM
Michael seems to have altered the testimony of both Scott and Joan Schiavo in his book. I assume this was done to give his book just right impression he wanted and possibly to get additional sympathy.
Scott Schiavo:
pg. 144 Michael writes:”Scott recounted what he told Judge Greer had happened back in February 1988….””Basically, she was gone, and we had to sit there for – it was Friday, and it was almost two days that we sat there and watched this machine blow air into her and suck it out, until she passed away.”
However, Scott Schiavo actually testfied to the following:
Q. How long was your grandmother on the ventilator?
A. From the early morning hours till mid afternoon of the same day.
That’s certainly not 2 days. Maybe, several hours. Flaw #1.”We went to lunch afterward at a restaurant called the Buck Hotel.”
But Scott testfied to the following:
A. Yes, there was. At the luncheon that we had, you know, my family, friends, and stuff.
Q. Kind of describe that for us.
A. We went to a, its called a country club but we went there for a luncheon afterwards.
Buck Hotel is not a country club. Flaw #2
“And Terri was sitting right to the left of me, and she turned around and looked me right in the eyes, and she said,’Not me, I would never want to be left that way. Don’t ever let them do that to me.'”
However Scott testfied to the following:”And Terri made mention at that conversation,”If I ever go like that, just let me go. don’t leave me there. I don’t want to kept alive on a machine.”
Joan Schiavo:
Pg. 159
“Joan and my brother Bill lost their first child, a little girl, who was born with the umbilical cord around her neck. In that same conversation with Terri about the patient in the movie, Joan began talking about their experience with the death of the baby, and it’s a story she also told Judge Greer.”We were just sitting and talking about the baby. If she had stayed alive – because of the cord being wrapped around her neck – she probably would have been brain dead, and my husband and I would have to make that decision, if we were faced with it, if we wanted to keep her alive like that or not. And as we were talking, I said that as hard as it would be, it would be a decision where we’d probably pull the plug, because I couldn’t stand to see her like that.’Cause it wasn’t a life for her, she only a little baby. And Terri agreed with me.”
This is a complete fabrication filled half truths.
Observe what really happen. Joan testified to the following:
A. A friend of mine and her husband had a baby. It was their first baby, and the baby was born sickly. They had to put the baby on a ventilator or machines to keep the baby alive. And they had to make that decision if they wanted to take the baby off the tubes and all.
Later joan testfies the following:
Q. The movie on television was that, that occurred before or after the — did you testify that occurred before the conversations you had about the baby? Let me ask it again. The conversation you had with Terri about a TV show and the diver not wanting be on life support, was that before or after the situation came up with your girlfriend?
A. After.
This definitely reflected in George Greer Ruling:”Into the former category the court places statements regarding Karen Ann Quinlin and the infant child of the friend of Joan Schiavo.”
Posted by: James at March 31, 2007 7:45 AM
Below are numerous accounts that showed that Terri was aware of her environment in a very primitive way.
In 1991 PT session Therapists reported that Terri was saying word “stop”
In the Mal Trial video, behaviors where shown to the court that showed Terri was apparently discomforted to some of things that happening to her.
Carla Iyer reported that Terri would say help me, mom, pain numerous times.
Heidi Law reported that Terri would follow her around the room with her eyes.
Fr. Molanowski and Frank Pavone reported Terri was very receptive to prayer.
Numerous caregivers reported that Terri would often laugh at jokes.
David Gibbs saw Terri try to say “I love you.” to Mary Schindler.
Bobby Schindlers reported that Terri smiled and laughed when he mentioned he attended a Bruce Springsteen concert.
Tom Broderson discovered that Terri has distinct likes and dislikes to certain types of music.
Some caregivers reported that Terri would fuss if the radio station was changed to music she did not care for.
Terri reacted different to Mary than she did to Bob Schindler and would often put on a “Lemon Face.” for Bob.
Suzanne and Barbara Weller reported that Terri tried to say “I want to live.”
Terri tried to get out of her chair when she was told on the phone that she was going to be starved to death.
Terri followed Dr. Hammersfahr’s commands to open her eyes.
Terri laughed when she was told about her “Lazy Eye”
Posted by: James at March 31, 2007 7:38 AM
Posted by: Bethany at September 20, 2007 8:04 AM
More….
Reasons why Congress intervened
While I won’t deny that some involved themselves purely for political purposes, below are some of the reason why Congress felt that they should have involved themselves in the Schiavo case.
When it was discovered that an innocent, disabled young woman was going to be starved and dehydrated to death by the order of a court, Congress decided to step in. Upon entering the arena many discovered some disturbing facts that prompted Congress to create federal involvement from the court level.
1. Some realized that Terri wasn’t dying. She wasn’t being kept alive artificially. She was receiving the provision of food and water because she had trouble swallowing (remember she could swallow but docs feared aspiration so no attempts were made). This wasn’t a right to die case. Terri was disabled. Many looked at this from a disability POV.
2. Some looked at the video tapes claiming she was PVS, Comatosed, or brain dead. After seeing evidence of an aware person and consulting neurologists who examined her and consulting the Schindlers and dozens of doctor affidavits, Congress clearly become concerned. There was more the shadow of doubt to doubt Terri’s PVS diagnosis.
3. When Congress saw that a human was going to be starved and dehydrated to death and realized that death row inmates were protected from this by the 8th amendment, Congress really became concerned. They further became concerned when they realized that this act couldn’t be done to an animal without persecution.
5. Many became concerned based on Terri’s wishes on the fact that there was nothing in writing. They became concerned when a adultorous husband was making the decision and the parents only wanted to care for her. Further troubling were caregivers affidavits claiming that Michael was not as sincere as we were lead to believe. Further troubling was fact that when Michael had submitted his 1998 petition to remove Terri’s feeding tube, he poised to inherit $750,000 and was poised to marry his financee Jodi.
6. Many became concerned when they discovered that Terri had no lawyer and that Judge Greer acted as the Judge, Jury, and Executionor in the case. They realized that even death row inmates were entitled to legal representation. Terri never had any legal representation. The Schindlers were represented, Michael was represented but Terri was never represented.
7. Congress became concerned that Terri was being sentenced to death when a great deal of doubt was there concerning her condition. Some were disturbed by the cursory examintions by docs claiming she was PVS (1 hour or less). Others realized that Terri wasn’t recieving the best medical tests available (no fMRI or PET scans). Further they saw that Terri hadn’t been examined in 3 years. They also took note that Terri never had a swallowing test in over 10 years even though GAL Pearse and many other strongly urged Terri to undergo swallowing tests.
8. Some realized the care of Terri was horrible liking being lock up in a hospice room for 3 years.
9. Congress also realized that Terri never recieved a federal review or a trial by jury, 2 things entitled to death row inmates.
Just some reasons why Congress probably got involved.
Posted by: James at March 30, 2007 10:07 PM
GOOD GOD!!! I DID NOT SAY ONE FRIGGIN DEROGATORY THING ABOUT TERRI SCHAIVO OR HER BROTHER PEOPLE, GET OFF MY A**!!!!
Posted by: Q at March 30, 2007 10:22 PM
The worst of these cases of which I am aware is the tragic dehydration of Marjorie Nighbert. Marjorie was a successful businesswoman until a stroke left her disabled. She was unable to swallow safely, but not terminally ill. She was moved from Alabama to a nursing home in Florida where she would receive rehabilitation to help her relearn how to chew and swallow without danger of aspiration. A feeding tube was inserted to ensure that she was properly nourished during her recovery.
Marjorie had once told her brother Maynard that she didn
Jess, actually I don’t believe anything either way about you being baptized Catholic.
BTW, being baptized Catholic and actually practicing Catholicism, along with the constant re-conversion of the heart and rededication to Our Lord, are entirely different things.
And I think God does extend extra mercy on His children who are lost and hurting. Whether they accept that grace, however, is up to them.
Jess, it’s true that Christians believe our reward does not come in this life, but the next. I don’t understand why the notion that there is more than just this time on earth is so disturbing for you.
I’m sorry you are hurting.
If you ask me which one of my children is my favorite, I’d reply it’s whichever one needs me most right then. I don’t see why Our Father would not be the same way.
That’s only half of it, but you can go to the other thread if you want to see the rest. I doubt you’ll need to. lol
Sorry you guys, I know that’s long.
Ok….God like a parents who needs maybe not fear but respect. If you believe in one thing the bible says you should believe in all of it. That is why I fear for my soul. I mean sometimes I think I can be vain and proud and that will send you straight to hell unless you confess. Although I am hesitent to confess until I feel truely repentant. And I don’t know how long that will take. One of the things I pray most for myself is to be humble.
There is perfect contrition (sorry for your sins, because you offended God) and imperfect contrition (sorry because you don’t want to go to Hell). Either is good enough to be forgiven.
And, I don’t anyone who doesn’t confess the same sin more than once… I have a particular cross that seems to make it into every single confession I make. But I am sorry, and I *do* try. And I reconcile with God when I sin.
Jess, do you believe that Jesus paid for your sins on the cross? Our righteousness is as filthy rags. There is nothing we can do to earn eternal life. That was what the point of His death on the cross was.
“But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8)
Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.
Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures … he was buried … he rose again the third day according to the scriptures … he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once” (1st Corinthians 15:3-6)
~ “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh unto the Father, but by Me.'” (John 14:6) (emphasis added on the)
“But as many as received Him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name” (John 1:12)
We Receive Christ Through Faith ~ “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast.” (Ephesians 2:8-9)
Sorry, I pushed post before I completed my thought. It is a miserable feeling, thinking that you must keep working in order to keep your salvation. For what meaning would Jesus have died if you had to pay for your own sins? Indeed, our works show that we have faith, and without works our faith is dead, but no where in the Bible does it ever say that we must work to achieve salvation.
Jesus paid it all, we accept salvation as a gift. (hugs)
But what caused her collapse 15 years ago remained a mystery.
The autopsy and post-mortem investigation found no proof that she had an eating disorder, as was suspected at the time, Pinellas-Pasco Medical Examiner Jon Thogmartin said.
It was her husband that claimed she had an eating disorder. To explain why she collapsed. To hide the fact that he choked her?
Here’s another one, but there are many more. I hope you do not mind me posting them, as you probably have already read them. But I just felt that they might help give you some comfort.
Romans 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference.
Romans 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Jess,
The parable of the lost sheep was last Sunday’s Gospel. I thought of all of you when I heard it. Then I placed each one of you on the altar, and imagined you with robes and crowns. Then I cried. Then I prayed. Very hard. Who knows. Maybe you are being searched for, even as we speak. Bleat a little louder. Come home Jess. Your Mother cries all the time and your Father is worried sick. Your whole family misses you. One sincere confession, and you’ll be good as new. Mercy and Grace. For the asking.
Doug, I’m copying and pasting this again for you, so you won’t miss it. I posted it in the last one, but it was already in the archives. Sorry it’s so long.
I’m going to paste some of the info that a commenter (James) had posted regarding the Terri Schiavo case in the other thread about her. He is an expert on Terri’s case, and I think that the information he posted is very important for everyone to read.
Bethany, I’m not saying that her husband was perfect, nor that doctors didn’t have differing opinions. But the atuposy was quite clear.
Doug
“But the atuposy was quite clear.”
Dyslexics Untie!
OK, I have a question. What if your loved one doesn’t want a G tube? Do you insist that the doctors put one in anyway? I intend to respect my mother’s wishes when her time comes. She doesn’t want this, and neither do I want this for myself. What should you do?
Dyslexics Untie!
lol Doug
But if you’ll notice, within what I posted, there is mention of the autopsy, and here is what it says:
Some Argue that Terri’s CT Scan showed clear evidence of Terri’s PVS Diagnosis. While a CT scan does show structural damage, a CT scan can only provide little into functional ability of a damaged brain. A bad CT scan does not automatically mean a person is PVS.
Some argue that Terri had 3 EEGs and they were all flat. Terri’s EEGs were not flat but were abnormal. Several of EEGs may have not been completely accurate because of artifact.
Some argue that the autopsy proved Terri’s brain was mush. While autopsy did report severe brain damage,it did report the cognitive areas of Terri’s brain were intact. Dr. Thogmartin also could not determine what effect 13 days of dehydration had on the shrinkage of Terri’s brain or her brain damage.
It should also be noted that Karen Ann Queilan was also PVS. However, her brain damage was focused on her thalmus and not the cerebral cortext. With Terri it was reversed. Terri’s cerebral cortex was damaged, but Terri’s thalmus was fairly intact (there was still damage). Scientists are beginning to understand that the Thalmus might play more active role in human consciousnes.
In a final note, Terri was never examined again after the 2002 trial even though radical new testing had become available that could have answered many troubling questions experts voiced about her condition.
Terri’s wishes – Everyone is saying that there was Clear and Convincing Evidence that Terri Schiavo would have wanted the feeding tube to be removing. However, reviewing these facts put heavy clout on Terri’s so-called wishes.
1. Terri was NOT a dying patient, and providing food and water
for her was part of normal care appropriate to her condition, it
was NOT heroic treatment. Without food and water, all of us
would die. Thus, Terri’s cause of death was NOT her condition
(brain damage), but intentional dehydration, which could have
easily been prevented. If you killed your cat or dog by the
same kind of slow dehydration — you would go to jail!
2. From the information and the video’s that I had seen of
Terri, it is clear that she was not unconscious, and it appears
that she was able to follow some instructions and responded to
other people in the room — thus whether her diagnosis was
correct is still a big question — but it is completely false to
say that the autopsy confirmed ANY diagnosis except the fact
that there was significant brain damage and brain atrophy.
However, it is impossible to correlate the appearance of the
brain with the degree of functional impairment. Some patients
with even greater degrees of brain damage (either posthumousely
verified by autopsy or prospectively by MRI imaging) are awake
and responsive.
3. However, the important point is that id DOESN’T MATTER
whether she was truly in the “persistent vegetative state” or
not, it is perfectly clear that she was NOT DYING (not terminal)
and that providing food and water for her was ordinary care and
the intentional removal of food and water (without even ever
trying to find out if she could be fed by mouth) was clearly
intended to cause her death — and thus, to put it simply, was
HOMICIDE. Even worse, it was a homicide committed with the
complicity of the medical profession and the judicial branch of
government.
4. You cannot “allow someone to die” who is not otherwise dying.
Thus this was NOT a case of “end of life” decision making
involving the removal of treatment which could only prolong the
process of dying, i.e.”heroic” treatment — it was a case of
willfully and intentionally “ending her life”.
1] Now the tax collectors and “sinners” were all gathering around to hear him. [2] But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law muttered, “This man welcomes sinners and eats with them.”
[3] Then Jesus told them this parable: [4] “Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Does he not leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? [5] And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders [6] and goes home. Then he calls his friends and neighbors together and says, ‘Rejoice with me; I have found my lost sheep.’ [7] I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.
[8] “Or suppose a woman has ten silver coins and loses one. Does she not light a lamp, sweep the house and search carefully until she finds it? [9] And when she finds it, she calls her friends and neighbors together and says, ‘Rejoice with me; I have found my lost coin.’ [10] In the same way, I tell you, there is rejoicing in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents.”
(11) And he said, A certain man had two sons:
(12) And the younger of them said to his father, Father, give me the portion of goods that falleth to me. And he divided unto them his living.
(13) And not many days after the younger son gathered all together, and took his journey into a far country, and there wasted his substance with riotous living.
(14) And when he had spent all, there arose a mighty famine in that land; and he began to be in want.
(15) And he went and joined himself to a citizen of that country; and he sent him into his fields to feed swine.
(16) And he would fain have filled his belly with the husks that the swine did eat: and no man gave unto him.
(17) And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my father’s have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger!
(18) I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee,
(19) And am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants.
(20) And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him.
(21) And the son said unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son.
(22) But the father said to his servants, Bring forth the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet:
(23) And bring hither the fatted calf, and kill it; and let us eat, and be merry:
(24) For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry.
(25) Now his elder son was in the field: and as he came and drew nigh to the house, he heard musick and dancing.
(26) And he called one of the servants, and asked what these things meant.
(27) And he said unto him, Thy brother is come; and thy father hath killed the fatted calf, because he hath received him safe and sound.
(28) And he was angry, and would not go in: therefore came his father out, and intreated him.
(29) And he answering said to his father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends:
(30) But as soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf.
(31) And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine.
(32) It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.
Crowns, and robes, and rings for you finger…
WHOO HOO! Party at Jess’s tonite. BYOC (Bring your own Calf)
Ugh I have been on here way too long. I’ve got a headache. Will come back later. lol
Bethany and Jess,
Don’t forget:
James 2:24 “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.”
Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.”
We can’t earn our salvation, but we can’t be unrepentant doers of wickedness and expect to have eternal life. So, no, just beleiving in Jesus is not enough. Even Satan beleives in Jesus. We can’t go around supporting child murder and walking in iniquity, but must work out our salvation with fear and trembling (Phil 2:12), seeking to know His will, and doing it. Becoming sanctified and pure is a refiner’s fire process, it doesn’t instantly come when beleiving in Christ. It takes work to learn humility and patience, etc. I’m still in elementary school in my sanctification.
I think your analogy about parents, Jess, is a good one. And like Milehimama said, there are two types of contrition- A child sorry for disobeying his parents because he knows he shouldn’t and doesn’t want to get put in time out and tries to change his behavior, and a child sorry for hurting his parents by disobeying. Either would merit mercy from a parent, although true atonement is better than the former. But since God’s mercy is extensive, we don’t need to fear Him like you do if we seek to know His will and do it.
Crowns, and robes, and rings for you finger…
WHOO HOO! Party at Jess’s tonite. BYOC (Bring your own Calf)
There will be music and dancing! And angels rejoicing!
“Put rings on his fingers, and bells on his toes, so that he shall have music wherever he goes!”
“What?”
“Sorry, wrong story.”
Oh, by the way, for those of you getting testy? How do you take a speck out of your brother’s eye while all the while there is this great plank in your own? Hypocrites! First you must take the plank out of your own eye in order that you can see clearly to take the speck out of your brothers.
*snickers* Did I ever tell you I used to read feet? You know. Some people read palms, or tea leaves…I read feet. No, really! Look! It says ‘rejoice!’
…It says re-bok.
I have been in Godspell way too many times.
“Put rings on his fingers, and bells on his toes, so that he shall have music wherever he goes!”
“Wearing rings on her fingers and bells on her toes,
And a bone in her nose ho, ho.”
http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/9066/37859545si1.png
Ironic.
Hahaha…amazing, Doug. It’s weird, I couldn’t smoke at all when I was pregnant. The taste made me nauseous.
A. . . . If there is a living will that said, “If I am in a PVS, please let me die,” that should be honored.
D. Food and nutrition being withheld is not really the same as allowing someone to die because they die of starvation, not the disease. But, a feeding tube is still a medical treatment, and again, we can’t force someone to be treated
PIP,
I only have a few minutes right now, I will try to come back to this later this evening. But for now, I would like to point out that the portion from your statement A. above, is opposed by the first part of your statement D. above.
You acknowledge in D. that intentionally starving a PVS patient is not “letting die” as per A. It gets back to the issue: is it OK to help someone kill themselves? Which is really what is going on when we starve someone to death by their own request. It’s like giving a loaded gun to someone who wants to end their life because they have cancer . . . but the method is slower.
“If I am in a PVS, please let me die”
PIP, if a person is PVS and does not also have additional medical conditions that are life-threatening, they are not dying. The request, “let me die” would not apply to the situation, because you cannot “let die” someone who in fact is not dying.
So, if someone writes “If I am in a PVS, please let me die” into a document, what they really mean is, “if I am in a PVS, please kill me by starvation and dehydration.” That would be the true nature of the situation.
And so it comes to this: can we help another person carry out a prior decision they have made to kill themselves (albeit by a very slow method) if the conditions are met under which they said they wanted this to be done?
“I would like to point out that the portion from your statement A. above, is opposed by the first part of your statement D. above.”
No, it is not. It is up to the person whether or not to stay in the PVS. Since maintenance here would require a feeding tube, it is a medical procedure, so if requested, it can be removed. My whole point was, we should not kill someone intentionally, but we have to respect a patient’s right to refuse treatment, even if it causes their death. It’s standard.
Let’s try another one. A boy has been on a feeding tube his whole life, and now there are very limited places to put the line. Right now it is very near the heart and the tube is bound to become clogged via infection.
We can either do another operation, in which he will probably die, or we can take out the line, give him painkillers, and let him die (via starvation). Who is going to make the decision? The patient! It is not our place to decide for him. We can give him advice, explain the situation, etc. But ultimately he decides, he signs the consent forms, and they do whatever is needed to carry them out.
” is it OK to help someone kill themselves?”
Permanent Vegetative State is different than just someone that is terminally ill, awake, conscious, emotionally feeling. It is partial brain death. It is on the slippery slope to death. And taking out the feeding tube would be withholding treatment rather than, for example, put Raid in it.
“t’s like giving a loaded gun to someone who wants to end their life because they have cancer . . . but the method is slower.”
Again there is a subtle but very important distinction here. There is a difference between withholding treatment and adding treatment or drug in order to kill. Therefore, if legal documents say, “withhold medical treatment, including the use of a feeding tube” then doctors can’t say anything, they have to obey! Where most disputes come from, it is the differing opinions between doctors (who often use the language vegetative state, continuing vegetative state, and permanent vegetative state) and what to do if no living will or directions are present.
This is a different situation than when Bethany said, “If I took food and water away from my children for 13 days till they died.” That is active killing because it is interfering with the right to life. There is a right to life and a right to die, the dispute is where to draw the line.
Many people take this standard, that in most cases active euthanasia and PAS are morally wrong, but passive euthanasia (withholding treatment) is acceptable in some situations: patient’s request, human limitations of care, etc.
OH WAIT! No what I meant before about glorifying death I meant the death of the mortal life so you could ascend into heaven for eternal life there. I meant it was just downplaying this life in favor of eternal life and that’s why people were willing to be martyred and possibly why we still glorify certain people dying. So I mean if you are willing to die to please God then shouldn’t you be willing to die to ease the suffering of you family (I mean people in vegatated states with no chance of recovery and the toll it can take)? I know about eternal life, that’s why I also believe strongly in Heaven and Hell.
“http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/9066/37859545si1.png
Ironic.”
It is now proven that smoking while pregnant can also negatively effect your grandchildren’s health also.
There is also such a thing as third hand smoke where the toxins linger on fabric and can cause cancer and other problems.
“PIP, if a person is PVS and does not also have additional medical conditions that are life-threatening, they are not dying.”
Usually PVS is a stage of dying, as it is a sign that the brain is not fuctioning. Many people who become in a Permanent Vegetative State are a result of trauma, and this leads to eventual death. Again I’m using broad terms, because we are discussing this in general. BEcause it is in a legal gray area usually it is looked on a case by case basis.
Regardless, the patient’s wishes to withhold treatment still prevails. Legal problems ensue when a doctor tries to make a decision or proxy conflicts are present.
Jess,
You have confused me beyond all words…are you Christian? Do You practice? Are you pro-life?
When is the last time you went to confession?
Oh mk I don’t even know anymore.
Being Christian does not automatically mean that one is anti-abortion. I know Christians who support a woman’s right to seek an abortion.
Enigma: I give you 5 minutes before someone says “They aren’t real Christians then.”
Erin,
Probably. But what makes someone more Christian than someone else? Whose to say that one interpretation is better than another?
Oh mk I don’t even know anymore.
Maybe you would like to email me?
We could talk where everyone is shouting their opinions at you?
Enigma and Erin,
No, of course you’re Christians. We’ll just change our name to accommodate you.
What is with you guys and Doug. You just make up rules about groups that you don’t belong to, and then get all snippy when we call you on it?
EVERYONE?!?!? Listen up. I believe that it is murder to kill and unborn baby for any reason and I will fight til I die to make it illegal for anyone to do it. And I believe that Jesus was God, the bible is true, that He died for my sins, and was Resurrected three days later.
And from now on I am calling myself a Pro-abort atheist. That’s right. I’ve decided that atheist means believing in Jesus and pro-abortion/choice means I want abortion to be illegal. I can do that now you know. Doug, Erin and Enigma said so.
I give them five minutes…and they won’t say anything….
I never claimed to be a Christian. I’m simply mentioning that I know Christians who support a woman’s right to abortion. That doesn’t mean that they aren’t Christian. They still believe in the Christian God. They still believe that Jesus died for their sins and they still believe that the bible is the word of God.
HAHAHAHAHA excellent way to get the point across, MK. Thank you!
So do I. But I am choosing to call myself an prochoice atheist anyway. Why, are you saying I shouldn’t?
Not at all. Call yourself whatever you wish. Names only have power when we give it to them.
I am simply mentioning that I never claimed to be a Christian. I’m very happy as an atheist.
If you don’t think they’re Christians, take it up with them. I’m only telling you what they call themselves.
I thin it is certainly possible to be pro choice and christian. I believe I’ve had that discussion here before however, and it will end up in the same circular argument and different interpretations by each side. So it really wouldn’t be worth the argument.
Just thought I’d throw in my two cents.
and on a side note, I hate figuring out college stuff, and am absolutely dreading the essays >
Then it stands…MK is officially a prochoice/abortion atheist…
God Bless You Enigma.
And may the Flying Spaghetti Monster smile on you.
Another note, you may call yourself whatever you wish. That doesn’t mean that the names you use have been properly applied.
Enigma, shes just going to pull out the idea of subjectivity and interpretation. It really isnt worth fighting her about.
Mk can be stubborn, (and I mean that in the best possible way ;) )
Enigma,
That doesn’t mean that the names you use have been properly applied.
Well now how come you can say that and I can’t?
From where I sit you can call yourself a Christian and be prochoice/abortion too. But it doesn’t mean that the name has been properly applied.
So I figure if your side can do it so can I.
Still a prochoice/abortion atheist…that’s me.
Why thank you Dan. I think. Now that we are on the same side and all…
Hey Enigma,
Erin got you into this mess…where did she go? Not really fair leaving you to clean up the mess…
yeah MK, except there is a legitimate argument to be made that abortion can be supported by christians, it all depends on your interpretation of the bible.
There is none of that subjectivity/interpretation with an atheist. You simply do not believe in god, end of story.
as for pro choice, same thing, you are completely redefining a word.
I am such a hypocrite. I say dont argue about it, and then I join in. Maybe its because Im so bored, hmm…
MK: Enigma and Erin, No, of course you’re Christians. We’ll just change our name to accommodate you.
What is with you guys and Doug. You just make up rules about groups that you don’t belong to, and then get all snippy when we call you on it?
I don’t feel snippy at all. What is the problem? It’s not us “making up” the rules, it’s you pretending that only “your way” is the true way.
It’s like if Zeke said that he was the only Christian on this site. The fact is that more pro-lifers allow exceptions for abortion than there are pro-lifers who don’t. And more Christians take your view, MK, than take Zeke’s.
Doug
lol MK, sorry, not an atheist ;)
but I am still pro choice :P
Ahhhh Dan…Pro life is pretty clear cut too. No exceptions. As soon as you say except for, then you become pro choice in certain situations…Doug claims he knows prolifers that believe abortion is wrong except…
Now this business with Christians…As it has been pointed out before, even satan believes in Jesus and that He died to save mens souls. So that doesn’t really prove anything.
So for tonight, and until further notice I am one of you…
mostly to make a point, but also because it was fun and I was a little bored too. Watching this place isn’t always a swingin’ time…but alas all good things must end so this prochoice atheist is off to bed…fear not, I’ll come to my senses in the morning and be prolife again…unless of course Doug or Erin start in again…pretty sure I’ve cured Enigma…but if not, I can always change back again. That’s the beauty of relativism…
G’night…
Thanks, Dan. I agree with everything that you said.
MK, my side? My Christian and “pro-choice” side? I’m not on that side. I’m an atheist. I don’t believe in God and I sincerely hope that I never will again.
Don’t worry about the college ap essays. You’ll do fine.
Ahhhhhh, see that Dan? I spoke too soon…
Fear not Dougie my boy. I’m agreeing with you. That’s why I’ve switched over to your side. I’m now a prochoice atheist that thinks abortion should be illegal in all cases and I happen to believe in God…so no more arguing. I’m now one of you! Rejoice…
God Love You Doug…from one atheist to another!
MK, you are changing the definitions of words which simply doesnt work. Saying you are a pro choice christian does not change the definition of christian, big difference there. And arent you pro life except for some situations? If not I know there are certainly some on the site. Are you saying they arent on your side?
and Enigma, I hope so, lol
I don’t feel snippy at all. What is the problem? It’s not us “making up” the rules, it’s you pretending that only “your way” is the true way.
Oh Doug…it’s not our way that is the true way…it’s our way because it’s our way.
You gave me stats last nite. Remember? Well only the 13% that think abortion is wrong in ALL cases were the pro lifers. The rest were prochoicers with “provisions”…
At least they were until now. Now we’re all prochoice atheists…I’m getting the hang of this relativism thingy…You’re right! It’s very liberating! Tomorrow I think I’m going to be a tea-totalling drunk!. And the next day I’m going to get myself a new pair of shoes and be barefoot and pregnant…and then I’m going to wear my fur coat to a PETA meeting…this is AWESOME!!!!!
Haha….I’m a fundamentalist Christian who hates America and has a portrait of L Ron Hubbard over my bed. I’m pro life and I believe that everyone who opposes abortion should be burned at the stake in accordance with the laws of Karma. May the force be with you.
but alas, the night grows old, and so do I…
But feel free to argue amongst yourselves. I agree with everything you say. Except for where I disagree.
G’night guys.
It was fun.
My Christian and “pro-choice” side?
No silly girl, your atheist prochoice side…that’s me now! I just happen to believe in God and want abortion to be illegal. 2 inconsequential details!
MK, I’m sorry, I don’t buy your argument. Now you’re simply being ridiculous.
PS. You have cured me of nothing.
PPS. Nor will you.
Dang…and I thought that with us being on the same side, we’d start agreeing more…oh well, even pro-choice atheists don’t see eye to eye…
MK,
As an uberly religious pro lifer, I shun your atheism.
*shun*
I mean, as a Fundamentalist Christian Hindu Scientologist I don’t see how you fill the hole in your life that religion is supposed to fill.
May Brahman have mercy on your soul, which has been poisoned by Xenu.
Doug –
Dyslexics Untie!
Posted by: Doug at September 20, 2007 2:23 PM
BAD DOUG!! Bad!!!
oh shucks….. When in college there were a group of students from the psychology dept that started a “Dyslexics Untie” group. It was fun! We didn’t really do anything about the Dyslexia, we just had fun. Kinda strange now that I think of it…..hmmmm…….
Where was I? oh yea
Bad Doug!
;-)
I think MK’s weirdness is spreading.
And as Johnny Carson used to say JK,
May the fleas of a thousand camels, infest your armpits…
May the force be with you…:)
Oh no…
JKeller got infected with the MK illness.
Is there a cure? A vaccine for those who have yet to be infected?
PIP, I hope you’re still going to see this. And I hope you don’t mind if I compliment you for striving to engage these issues in a serious, level-headed way.
For this comment, I would like to clear up what I think is a source of misunderstanding. In some ways you and I are on the same page. In other ways we are not. But, part of the divergence is because we are working with different definitions of PVS. Whose idea of what PVS is is correct? Yours or mine?
You wrote:
“Permanent Vegetative State is different than just someone that is terminally ill, awake, conscious, emotionally feeling. It is partial brain death. It is on the slippery slope to death.” [5:17pm]
“Usually PVS is a stage of dying, as it is a sign that the brain is not fuctioning. Many people who become in a Permanent Vegetative State are a result of trauma, and this leads to eventual death.” [5:27pm]
Now, of course I claim that your understanding of what PVS actually is, is wrong. Close, but still in error in a significant way. How so? PVS is a serious brain injury, very debilitating–but it is not brain death. It is a stable, low-functioning condition, but not in itself, terminal. The patient is not conscious (or, at least does not show clearly discernable indications of consciousness)–but does have sleep and wake cycles. Their eyes open and close. Unlike with a coma, the patient sleeps and wakes each day. The patient may move somewhat, but not in a voluntary way. Their digestive system is functioning. Their heartbeat and breathing is stable and functions without assistance. This is not death in any current medical sense of the term.
Following are two authorities that support my claim (I include coma as well for a comparison). First, I will give both authorities on coma, then, I will give both on the vegetative state:
Authority “A” is from the web site of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (a branch of the National Institutes of Health [NIH]), the ?Coma and Persistent Vegetative State Information Page?
[see web page: http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/coma/coma.htm%5D
Authority “B” is from the web site of the Brain Injury Association of America, their section on ?Severe Brain Injury?
[see web page: http://www.biausa.org/education.htm#severe%5D
OK. What do they say?
On coma:
A.
A coma is a profound or deep state of unconsciousness. An individual in a state of coma is alive but unable to move or respond to his or her environment. Coma may occur as a complication of an underlying illness, or as a result of injuries, such as head trauma.
B.
Coma is defined as a state of unconsciousness from which the individual cannot be awakened, in which the individual responds minimally or not at all to stimuli, and initiates no voluntary activities.
–Persons in a coma appear to be asleep, but cannot be awakened.
–There is no meaningful response to stimulation.
Persons who sustain a severe brain injury can make significant improvements, but are often left with permanent physical, cognitive, or behavioral impairments.
Now, both sources on PVS:
A.
A persistent vegetative state (commonly, but incorrectly, referred to as “brain-death”) sometimes follows a coma. Individuals in such a state have lost their thinking abilities and awareness of their surroundings, but retain non-cognitive function and normal sleep patterns. Even though those in a persistent vegetative state lose their higher brain functions, other key functions such as breathing and circulation remain relatively intact. Spontaneous movements may occur, and the eyes may open in response to external stimuli. They may even occasionally grimace, cry, or laugh. Although individuals in a persistent vegetative state may appear somewhat normal, they do not speak and they are unable to respond to commands.
What is the prognosis?
. . . . Some patients may regain a degree of awareness after persistent vegetative state. Others may remain in that state for years or even decades. The most common cause of death for someone in a persistent vegetative state is infection, such as pneumonia.
B.
Vegetative State (VS)
Vegetative State (VS) describes a severe brain injury in which:
–Arousal is present, but the ability to interact with the environment is not.
–Eye opening can be spontaneous or in response to stimulation
–General responses to pain exist, such as increased heart rate, increased respiration, posturing, or sweating
–Sleep-wakes cycles, respiratory functions, and digestive functions return
There is no test to specifically diagnose Vegetative State; the diagnosis is made only by repetitive neurobehavioral assessments.
Persistent Vegetative State (PVS)
Persistent Vegetative State (PVS) is a term used for a Vegetative State that has lasted for more than a month.
–The criteria is the same as for Vegetative State
The use of this term is considered controversial because it implies a prognosis.
PIP, I hope that you will agree that your conception of PVS is not what the medical community takes PVS to be. The most important point for me, I think, is to realize that VS, or PVS, can be short or long term conditions from which patients sometimes recover. Of themselves, they are not fatal conditions. If a patient dies while in PVS, the cause of death would be from some other underlying diesease or illness (such as pneumonia, as stated above), not from PVS itself. It is a type of brain injury, serious, but not fatal.
So, PIP, this is important because it means that according to the NIH and the Brain Injury Association of America your statements that PVS is “partial brain death”; “on the slippery slope to death”; or “a stage of dying” are incorrect.
Do you agree?
*rolls eyes* I’m really not going to miss my three day vacation. Hopefully I’ll be back by Monday, have a good weekend, everyone.
Br. Francis.
Thanks for the compliment.
Let’s do this one bit at a time.
A. When someone is in a permanent vegetative state, the part of their brain regarding stimuli, sleep/wake cycles etc. is the brain stem. If it is permanent, the cerebral cortex is damaged (presumably) permanently. They will never regain consciousness.
B. I was incorrect in saying partial brain death when I meant irreversibly damaged. I concede on that.
But think of it this way. It is a graph or a “zone”. At the bottom is irreversible lung and heart cessation. Duh. Given. This is declared by the nurses as TOD.
Above that is brain death. Most in the medical community would describe this as death, and usually withdraw medical care here. Most believe it is ethical to harvest organs here.
Above that is the PVS. It is lower than everything else, because people in a PVS will often die of trauma shortly, or after a while die of other causes (like the infection stated above). Because of their state, and the nature of the medical procedure involved, it is much easier for them to succomb to things like infections, and that is why they are on a “slippery slope.” Because of the nature of the beast (trauma, infections, etc), PVS is considered by most, this “upper limit” of medical care. This is what I meant by “stage of dying” i.e. stage of care. Most agree that here harvesting organs etc. is completely unethical. In fact, most, like me, think that these people must be taken care of EXCEPT when the patient and/or proxy clearly state what their wishes are.
Does that make any sense? I’m sure it’s confusing because I’m not very good at explaining complicated things. I’m getting the “Dying zone” model from “Reexamining Death: The Asympotitic Model and a Bounded Zone Definition” by Linda L Emanuel, assistant director of the Division of Medical Ethics at Harvard Medical school (1995).
I’m practically on the same level as you. They should be taken care of. They shouldn’t be actively euthanized, as I am against active euthanasia. If it is their wish to withdraw medical treatment it simply has to be honored. It’s one of the good reasons we have patient’s rights.
Now I reaaaaallllly have to get back to studying for genetics test. Pray for me, everyone!! I’m going to need it!!
We can continue this tomorrow, Br. Francis. Pray for me too :)
PIP, please check out this article, from September, 2006.
Reborn
Here is the opening paragraph:
We have always been told there is no recovery from persistent vegetative state – doctors can only make a sufferer’s last days as painless as possible. But is that really the truth? Across three continents, severely brain-damaged patients are awake and talking after taking … a sleeping pill. And no one is more baffled than the GP who made the breakthrough.
And near the end of the article, is this . . .
PVS is the result of irreparable damage to the cerebral cortex – the “thinking, feeling” part of the brain – but it is not to be confused with brain death. And while the “persistent” bit in the title indicates that the condition, unlike coma, is generally deemed permanent, there are intermittent reports of “recoveries”.
And here is another source for a description of PVS: The National Catholic Bioethics Center (NCBC). I didn’t include them above because I thought you might not consider them unbiased. But, for those who may be interested, here is the NCBC description of PVS (it is consistent with those given by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, and the Brain Injury Association of America, above):
PVS is a form of “Eyes open unconsciousness” which manifests as an apparent lack of awareness while awake. It results from trauma, disease, or injury causing oxygen deprivation to the brain. This was the condition of Karen Anne Quinlan, Nancy Cruzan, and Terri Schiavo. Sleep-wake cycles exist with a putative lack of awareness of self or others while awake. These patients also lack comprehension or expression of language, and they exhibit no reproducible voluntary responses to external stimuli. Scientists admit there is much that remains unknown about PVS.
The word ‘vegetative’ does not mean that the person has become less than human, but rather has lost, at least temporarily, the sort of awareness that characterizes normal adult human life. The prognosis for recovery is determined by the cause of the injury, co-morbid conditions, and length of time one has been been vegetative.
for a full web page FAQ on PVS, see the NCBC web site here:
http://www.ncbcenter.org/FAQ_PVS.asp
All right, I’ll pray for you PIP. (My undergraduate degree is in biology. I too had genetics exams!)
I have to go. But, I think you will be very interested in the following.
Here is the abstract of the article, “Detecting awareness in the vegetative state,” published last year in the journal Science, Sep 8, 2006:
We used functional magnetic resonance imaging to demonstrate preserved conscious awareness in a patient fulfilling the criteria for a diagnosis of vegetative state. When asked to imagine playing tennis or moving around her home, the patient activated predicted cortical areas in a manner indistinguishable from that of healthy volunteers.
You can access the full text for free on the http://www.sciencemag.org web site if you register
This is from the concluding paragraph of the full text article:
These results confirm that, despite fulfilling the clinical criteria for a diagnosis of vegetative state, this patient retained the ability to understand spoken commands and to respond to them through her brain activity, rather than through speech or movement. Moreover, her decision to cooperate with the authors by imagining particular tasks when asked to do so represents a clear act of intention, which confirmed beyond any doubt that she was consciously aware of herself and her surroundings.
You may be familiar with doing research for scholarly medical articles using pubmed (via http://www.pubmed.gov)
Here are a few other academic articles that relate to PVS and consciousness or recovery. You can’t access the full text for free for these, but you can view the abstracts. Just go to the pubmed web site, put in one of the ID numbers below (PMID means PubMed ID) in the “for” search box, and click on “go.” The info for the article will come up.
“Using functional magnetic resonance imaging to detect covert awareness in the vegetative state.”
PMID: 17698699
The last sentece of the abstract:
Recent advances in functional neuroimaging suggest a novel solution to this problem; in several cases, so-called activation studies have been used to identify residual cognitive function and conscious awareness in patients who are assumed to be in a vegetative state yet retain cognitive abilities that have evaded detection using standard clinical methods.
“Positive outcomes in traumatic brain injury-vegetative state: patients treated with bromocriptine”
PMID: 11245751
“DBS therapy for the vegetative state and minimally conscious state.”
PMID: 15986737
“Cerebral response to patient’s own name in the vegetative and minimally conscious states”
PMID: 17372124
PIP, forgive me, I’m on a role here (must. . . leave . . . computer . . . soon!)
You have graciously conceded above that PVS is not brain death. OK. So we agree now on the point that PVS does not equal death.
You also said that patients in PVS “will never regain consciousness.” I claim that I have also now shown this to be false, on two counts at least: 1) some PVS patients in fact have regained consciousness (as some of the above scholarly articles report)–and if not back to totally normal consciousness, at least to a measure of consciousness capable of interacting with the outside world on some level; and 2) at least one person diagnosed as PVS (per the 2006 Science journal article above), has been conclusively shown by fMRI to have cognitive function even while still being in the PVS state! When given verbal instructions to imagine certain things, her brain reacted “in a manner indistinguishable from that of healthy volunteers.”
So, for a least some people in PVS, not only might they recover some cognition at some future time, they may even be thinking on some level right now! We just didn’t know it until fMRI technology came along.
I would end with a final point here that we who are now or who have studied biology in the past can be overly hasty in assuming an excessively high level of certainty for some currently held scienctific conclusions about the human being. We are astonishingly complex creatures, and the history of science has no shortage of examples of once firmly held ideas shown to be totally off base with the advent of better research tools. In fact, one example is, only just back in the 1980’s, the standard opinion among the leading obstetrician scholars who published in the medical journals, was that newborn babies do not feel pain. This is why anesthesia even in the early 80’s was not considered standard practice for circumcisions of newborns (it is now). But starting around the mid 80’s, research on the sentience of the fetus has shown very conclusively that not only is the newborn highly sensitive to pain, so is the fetus–even more so than a born child is–beginning at least as early as 21 weeks gestation, perhaps earlier. And the area of medical knowledge about the human being that is the most clouded by the vast amounts that we do not know, is the brain. Even in our advanced era, we should be very reticent to speak with excessive certitude about what we know of the activity of the human brain. Much mystery remains.
Doug,
Take Note:
I would end with a final point here that we who are now or who have studied biology in the past can be overly hasty in assuming an excessively high level of certainty for some currently held scienctific conclusions about the human being. We are astonishingly complex creatures, and the history of science has no shortage of examples of once firmly held ideas shown to be totally off base with the advent of better research tools. In fact, one example is, only just back in the 1980’s, the standard opinion among the leading obstetrician scholars who published in the medical journals, was that newborn babies do not feel pain. This is why anesthesia even in the early 80’s was not considered standard practice for circumcisions of newborns (it is now). But starting around the mid 80’s, research on the sentience of the fetus has shown very conclusively that not only is the newborn highly sensitive to pain, so is the fetus–even more so than a born child is–beginning at least as early as 21 weeks gestation, perhaps earlier. And the area of medical knowledge about the human being that is the most clouded by the vast amounts that we do not know, is the brain. Even in our advanced era, we should be very reticent to speak with excessive certitude about what we know of the activity of the human brain. Much mystery remains.
Hahaha…amazing, Doug. It’s weird, I couldn’t smoke at all when I was pregnant. The taste made me nauseous.
Erin, I wouldn’t smoke if I got pregnant.
Doug
“I don’t feel snippy at all. What is the problem? It’s not us “making up” the rules, it’s you pretending that only “your way” is the true way.
It’s like if Zeke said that he was the only Christian on this site. The fact is that more pro-lifers allow exceptions for abortion than there are pro-lifers who don’t. And more Christians take your view, MK, than take Zeke’s.”
MK: Oh Doug…it’s not our way that is the true way…it’s our way because it’s our way.
That’s pretty reasonable. Yet there can be competing “our ways,” even within what is often termed on thing, such as Christianity, where looking deeper into it one sees some commonality but also great differences in the sub-groups.
……
You gave me stats last nite. Remember? Well only the 13% that think abortion is wrong in ALL cases were the pro lifers. The rest were prochoicers with “provisions”…
Or they could be called pro-lifers with provisions. You do have a good point, here, though – you are “pro” more life than those who would allow exceptions.
Doug
Fundamentalist Christian Hindu Scientologist
::speculating on how this would work::
If the electricity used in the auditing process creates a large carbon footprint, is that bad karma?
Brother Francis, and MK,
It is a good point that there is much we don’t know, and also that long-held ideas and information are sometimes incorrect.
Yet I would disagree that research has shown very conclusively that the fetus is very sensitive to pain, at 21 weeks or earlier. Part of it is defining “pain.” If we are just saying that nerve impuses get to the thalamus, that is one thing, but does that mean there is an emotional response? Is there actual mental awareness or consciousness of it – is it really “felt” and perceived to be bad, hurting, harmful, etc? Is it a negative thing, at that point?
Agreed, though – much mystery remains.
Best,
Doug
If the electricity used in the auditing process creates a large carbon footprint, is that bad karma?
Mile-High Mama, large carbon footprints don’t rust, are non-allergenic, and can be used as water skis or boogie boards. In a pinch, if stacked up, they even make for a passable pillow, so I think the karma has its good points.
Doug
(“I’m just an old chunk of coal, but I’m gonna be inside a #2 pencil some day…”)
Doug:
“Yet I would disagree that research has shown very conclusively that the fetus is very sensitive to pain, at 21 weeks or earlier. Part of it is defining “pain.” If we are just saying that nerve impuses get to the thalamus, that is one thing, but does that mean there is an emotional response? Is there actual mental awareness or consciousness of it – is it really “felt” and perceived to be bad, hurting, harmful, etc? Is it a negative thing, at that point?”
The answer to what I put in bold is yes it is felt however it is not perceived. How can they perceive (to understand; to become aware) if they have no life experience to tell them what it is. Just because they don’t perceive the pain doesn’t mean they don’t feel it.
Find out if you can visit a neonatal ICU. You will see many babies in there that can feel the pain – they cry and their bodies shake when they are stuck with a needle, or moved to an uncomfortable position – but they have no idea what it is. You can see the confustion in their faces. They do not understand what that feeling is, they do not understand why it feels the way it does, yet they still cry because it hurts them.
You have fallen for the old “musical words” excuse. They don’t perceive the pain, but they know it hurts them. If it didn’t hurt, they would cuddle up and fall asleep like when you touch them or hold them. But when poked with a needle, they cry.
I saw twin babies that were born at 24 1/2 weeks gestation that cried when hurt. When one of the twins died, the other one stopped moving. The doctors said that he was depressed. How could this be? There is no way he could have perceived the loneliness.
Sorry to go on and on, but I spent 35 days in the newborn ICU while my son was in there. Do that, and it will affect you for life and you will know the tremendous amount of pain they feel.
Valerie, I don’t disagree with most of what you said there. By 24.5 weeks, for example, the cortex is at least usually partially hooked up, and “running.” Jill said her grandson was born premature at 25 weeks, and felt pain, and I believe that too.
Also a good point about experience and references to compare sensation to. This isn’t “musical words,” it’s a straightforward question.
You say when poked, they cry. Well, that satisfies that there is emotional response, that “bad” is perceived, etc. I have no doubt that an EEG would confirm familiar cortical activity then.
Big changes occur at birth, even for preemies, and some people think that the perception of pain is altered at that point. May be – I don’t know.
24 or 25 weeks is much different than 21 weeks and earlier, and birth may also alter it, so the question is still open.
Doug
Br. Francis-
Very quickly–
i made an effort to say “permanent” vegetative state rather than the other two (vegetative state and continuing vegetative state).
I’m assuming the term “permanent” means what it says.
It’s like if Zeke said that he was the only Christian on this site. The fact is that more pro-lifers allow exceptions for abortion than there are pro-lifers who don’t. And more Christians take your view, MK, than take Zeke’s.”
Doug, MK was doing nothing different than what you all were doing, by saying that there can be pro-choice Christians. A Christian is defined as:
“One who adheres to the teachings of Jesus.”
Jesus teachings were not that difficult to interpret. One must actually read them and not twist some out of context, however. That is what the Pharisees tried to do, and failed every time.
What Jesus taught in parables, he expounded on to explain what they meant. He was very clear and direct about many things, many of them being the fact that children were very precious in the sight of God.
Being pro-choice, and being anti-children- except the “wanted” children- being any of those things is not a Christian view of the world. It is not a belief that adheres to Christ’s teachings in any respect.
It is a self-centered mindset, looking out for your own needs and desires before others. This is directly against the teachings of Jesus, who said that we should not be concerned with the things of this world. It?s the cares of the world that “chokes out the seed and makes it unfruitful”. It?s the cares of the world, and the “deceitfulness of riches” that the good soldier of Jesus is not to be entangled in.
Jesus no where taught that we needed to be looking out for our own worldly interests. There is nothing that he taught that can even remotely be interpreted this way unless you completely distort his words. So if anyone claims to be a Christian, yet is more interested in themselves, their career, their education, than pleasing their Lord, serving others, chances are, they are not adhering to the teachings of Jesus Christ. (this doesn’t imply that education or anything like that is wrong, simply that your focus should be more on others than yourself according to Jesus teachings).
Also, if anyone truly believes they reflect Christ with that type of mindset needs to take a moment to actually read what Jesus said about Children:
When little children were brought to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them, the disciples rebuked those who brought them. Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” (Matthew 19:13-14 NIV)
36 And he took a child, and set him in the midst of them: and when he had taken him in his arms, he said unto them, 37 Whosoever shall receive one of such children in my name, receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me.
1 At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? 2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, 3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. 4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me. 6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
Also, John the Baptist lept in his mother’s womb for joy.
This is one of MANY examples from the Bible that reflect the truth that unborn children have value and are human beings.
If Mary had been pro-choice, there may have never been a Jesus.
And also, I feel my main point here is being missed so you can prove that those in a persistent (not to be confused with permanent) vegetative state can wake up (etc). My point really is that we should never actively euthanize anybody. But if someone refuses medical procedure we have to do it. Even if it means they will die. Even if they could recover if they had time or treatment. It is their choice and their right. We can’t make someone do chemo if they don’t want to. We can’t make someone be on a ventilator if they don’t want to. We can’t give someone medication for pneumonia if they don’t want us to. And if someone wants to cease the use of their feeding tube, it should be/is obeyed.
I am against PAS and euthanasia- but again there is a subtle difference. PAS and active euthanasia requires a specific human action in order to bring a persons death unnaturally (i.e. give them a drug overdose, put raid in their IV drip, etc). Withdrawing medical care, however, is different. They die from lack of care- they die what is deemed “natural” (feeding tubes here are not natural–but needed to sustain life) death. This is because it is the patient’s right what is done to their body. If they want doctors to withdraw care, it is their perogative and doctors must do it. They MUST. Or the idea of patient’s rights is a joke.
Thanks for the prayers. I have a bad feeling about it though..
Here is my opinion. If someone wants all measures taken to preserve life while in a PVS, then by all means, do it. However, not everyone wants this for themselves, and those wishes should be respected. Personally, I do NOT want this for myself.
If Mary had been pro-choice, there may have never been a Jesus.
My word, this is one of the silliest things I’ve heard. Mary always had a choice. She said “yes” to God and said “yes” to life.
My dad didn’t want it, my mom doesn’t want it, and I don’t want it.
Greetings, it’s morning again. . . Hmmmm.
PIP, I am praying for you. Hope your test is going well.
All right. Here are some more points that I think are very important and I have been intending to make but haven’t been able to get to yet.
A. Even though I went to the effort above of debunking (or, hopefully, at least casting doubt upon) what I consider a much too-confident opinion that PVS patients are not conscious at all or will never be conscious again, this is actually not relevant to the moral question about food and water. Speaking from a Catholic point of view, the most relevant fact is that the PVS patient is a living human being, though seriously disabled, and is not by the fact of being in PVS near death nor in a terminal condition that is progressing toward death. And so, we have an obligation to care for such people with the same respect for their life that we are obliged to give any other disabled person–we must provide them the basic things all human beings need for life. And this includes food and water. All human beings deserve to have their life reverenced with great care, in keeping with the inherent dignity and sacredness of life.
B. So, in other words, the value of a human life is not dependent on one’s state of consciousness or ability to function. It is precious regardless of one’s state of ability or disability. And for us Christians, we acknowledge that the source of this tremendous value is not a utilitarian or practical construct that we think up, but is God Himself. More than any other consideration, life is a treasure because every human being is created and loved by God. Even if we don’t understand the circumstances, He cares intensely about each of us. He has a purpose for each of us, even if we can’t see it. Life belongs to Him, and while here on earth we are temporary stewards of what ultimately belongs to Him. And, among other things, this should mean that even though we have the ability to choose to end life according to criteria of our own making, we do not have the authority to decide when a person should die (assuming innocence here; capital punishment is a whole other ball of wax I don’t want to get tangled into on this thread). That is God’s department. And, He is not obligated to tell us why He allows certain people to live. (And I acknowledge that whether one is a Christian or not [traditional Jewish views I’m pretty sure would be very similar] greatly impacts how one regards this sort of statement.)
C. What constitutes euthanasia, according to the teaching of the Catholic church, is as follows:
By euthanasia is understood an action or an omission which of itself or by intention causes death, in order that all suffering may in this way be eliminated. (Declaration on Euthanasia, 1980)
Looking at this, PIP and I have different understandings of euthanasia. For her, she seems to allow for something called “passive” euthanasia. For me, the moral status of “passive” vs “active” euthanasia are the same. Whether or not one performs some physical action to bring about death, or whether one chooses not to provide food and water from someone who is nonetheless not dying and is able to digest food, they are both euthanasia. In both cases, there is an intention to cause death to another human being. The choice has the same moral reference whether one is injecting poison into an IV line to cause death, or, pulling out a feeding tube to cause death. Both involve making a choice for death, and then shaping one’s action in regard to the patient so as to bring it about. By action or omission, euthanasia is euthanasia in my point of view. Calling it “passive” in certain circumstances does not alter the moral evil being done if death is the end result intended. As PIP said earlier, allowing-to-die and killing are not the same.
D. There is a moral principle that you cannot do a moral evil even if someone else asks you to. In other words, just because someone asked me is not a valid reason to commit a bad act. The truth of this principle is obvious when thinking of examples of especially heinous acts. Can I rape, or torture, or poison, or cheat, or steal, on the justification that a friend asked me to? No! By asking me to do a moral evil, the person asking me would be violating both my and his dignity as a human being. A request from another to do something morally wrong does not oblige us in any way.
E. So, putting C. and D. together, the way I see it (and this is the Catholic view), a patient’s advance request, whether verbal or in writing, to withdraw or withhold food and water if at some future time they become PVS, is an illegitimate request because it is a request to do something evil–euthanize the person (see C. above) by omission. In other words, as I see it, such a request has the moral status of the patient asking someone to kill them if they were to become disabled in a certain way, though they would not be dying. Another way to describe this, is assisted suicide by advance plan.
So, in conclusion, PIP, this is why I would say you are wrong to claim that there is an obligation according to patient’s rights to carry out an advance request not to give food and water for a PVS state. If the patient were truly near death, the situation would be different. But this is not the case with PVS. There are some things that we ought not do even if someone else asks us. Certainly, killing another person, falls in this category. And my point about PVS not being terminal is relevant because it removes the idea that the patient is near death.
So, should we kill (euthanasia by omission) a seriously disabled person if he has asked us to ahead of time in writing? Or do patient’s rights override this?
Respecting patient’s rights is important, but this does not trump all other moral principles. Not taking innocent life is a higher principle. Agree?
If Mary had been pro-choice, there may have never been a Jesus.
My word, this is one of the silliest things I’ve heard. Mary always had a choice. She said “yes” to God and said “yes” to life.
Tony, I think you misunderstand me.
I meant that if Mary had been “pro-choice” (as these people like to call it), she could have also been choked by the cares of this world (she wasn’t) and she could have desired to abort based on the many factors that women choose to abort today (she didn’t, and never would have).
Mary was definitely NOT pro-choice (God would have never chosen her to be the one who’s womb Jesus was carried in had she been).
My point was, that being pro-choice is wrong, and it goes directly against the teachings of Jesus.
I agree, she had a choice. And she chose correctly.
But being pro-choice really isn’t about “choice”…it’s about death, but the world choice is a mask to that fact.
So when I say pro-choice, I am merely being respectful to other debaters here. I know what pro-choice really means. (pro-abortion)
Doug –
MK posted this before…But I think some of it is worth repeating..
spectrumcenter.net/auditory.html
Of all our senses, hearing is the first to develop in utero by four-and-one-half months gestation, the ear is fully formed and functional….According to Tomatis, the mother’s voice is not only an emotional nutrient to the child, but also prepares the child to acquire language after birth. In other words, listening begins in the womb.
_______
How can there be an emotional nutrient to anything at 4 1/2 month gestation? How can a fetus begin to “listen” in the womb?
________________
spectrumcenter.net/sensoryintegration.html
The vestibular system is part of the inner ear and its job is to detect motion and gravity, and provides us with our sense of balance…..The vestibular system is the first sensory system to develop in the womb, and starts to develop when the fetus is only two weeks old. It is fully formed and starting to function in the womb by 4 and 1/2 months gestation . Because of this early development the vestibular system has many connections with the rest of the brain, which develops around it; consequently, it is believed to provide the foundation for many other functions…..
The tactile system, our sense of touch, is a sensory system that develops very early and therefore has the opportunity to influence the developing brain. Tomatis viewed the skin as part of the vestibular (somatic) integrator because the tissue that goes on to become the skin in the developing fetus emerges from the tissue that forms the ear. The tactile system starts to develop soon after the vestibular system, and it is the only sensory system that is fully functional at birth…..
____________________
The vestibular system starts to develp at 2 weeks. The Tactile system, our sense of touch, starts to develop soon after the vestibular system.
_____________________
spectrumcenter.net/auditoryprocessing.html
Our ability to analyze sound develops in the womb.
The fetus learns to tune in the salient sounds of his mother’s voice and ignore background noise.
an unborn fetus will respond with a different movement, to each of the phonemes (building blocks of language) spoken by the mother. This early listening in the womb plays a vital role in the later development of language
Movement and sound are closely linked as exemplified in the example of the fetus moving in response to the phonemes spoken by his mother. That is because both movement and sound are perceived by the inner ear?the vestibular cochlear system
http://www.birthpsychology.com/lifebefore/index.html#columnintro
An additional reason for parents to begin active parenting at conception is the discovery that babies in the womb are also developing more rapidly than previously thought possible. From the second month of pregnancy, experiments and observations reveal an active prenate with a rapidly developing sensory system permitting exquisite sensitivity and responsiveness. Long before the development of advanced brain structures, prenates are seen interacting with each other and learning from experience.
Only a decade ago, doctors typically told pregnant mothers and fathers that talking to a baby in the womb was useless and unrealistic. Now there is mounting evidence for memory and learning in utero and for precocious communication before the stage of language.
http://www.birthpsychology.com/lifebefore/sound5.html
With support from touch, taste, and smell, hearing plays a prominent role in connecting us to the outside world while we are in the womb.
We have to think that the intrauterine environment of the fetus is deeply affecting personality development.
http://www.birthpsychology.com/lifebefore/sound3.html
Since we know that the fetus is involved in initiating labor….
Especially in the past, it was much more common for the pregnant woman and fetus to be exposed to the risk of cataclysmic death from the environment or infectious diseases and epidemics. In these situations, some of these premature babies might survive. For the mother, delivery of the baby would allow her to direct her energies toward survival and future childbearing.
http://www.birthpsychology.com/lifebefore/sound1.html
DeMause (1982) summarizes reactions of the second trimester as follows: ” The fetus now floats peacefully, kicks, turns, sighs, grabs its umbilicus, gets excited at sudden noises, calms down when the mother talks quietly, and gets rocked back to sleep as she walks about.”
_____________________
I will also repeat where this research comes from
It has nothing to do with Pro-Life or Pro-Choice. This is the study of sensory integration. They are trying to figure out developmental problems such as autism.
In these study, they admit several times that we are still learning about fetal development and we are learning that they are developing faster than thought.
The tactile system which is responsible for touch begins to develop soon after 2 weeks gestation.
With all of this, how can you say that we don’t know if they feel pain before 21 weeks!
It is shocking how willing everyone is to dismiss this kind of information because it isn’t what you want to hear. The fetus develops faster than what we thought. Studies are ongoing because we have found out how wrong we haven been.
Okay – I’ve gotten myself very upset right now…I’ll stop.
The website address’ will have to be copy and pasted – It was the only way I could post all the links……..
I’ll be checking for additional comments. But unless I am super-compelled, I’ll have to try to wrap up my comments on this thread now. Thanks, especially, PIP, for the discussion.
Oh, “permanent” vs “persistent” applied to Vegetative State is somewhat arbitrary. Looking into this tells me that there is no significant clinical difference between Vegetative State, Persistent Vegetative State, and Permanent Vegetative State. These terms are really standardized judgments (not infallible) of different likelihoods of recovery according to time and history. They are not based on significant clinically observed changes in the patient’s status, but rather are based on the statistical likelihood of future recovery given a certain length of time gone by and the historical reason for the Vegetative State. And given all that has been said above (especially known recoveries from PVS and even a PVS patient with active thinking going on!), I, for one, am not willing at all to accept that “persistent” or “permanent” is a 100 percent certain label. These things are not definite. Doctors are not gods who can see the future. Again, we are far too eager to uncritically allow something as contingent as medical nomenclature, which is standardized for the sake of clarity and consistency–but over time is often adjusted as a result of new findings–to dictate how we treat others even on matters of life and death.
“Is this person dying? And if so, why?” is the first basic question that should be asked. How this is answered has great ramifications for what we can and cannot do. The mere fact that the word “permanent” is used as a medical term should not have anything to do with life and death decisions. I have seen too many supposedly “certain” prognoses of near death turn out to be wrong. As a Christian, I strongly affirm that food and water are basic necessities of life and are never “medical” treatments, even if given by artificial means. As such, we are obliged to provide them if the person can still assimilate them and the body thereby benefit. Morally speaking, we are obliged to feed a PVS patient in the same way we would be obliged to bring food to an awake child that can feed herself but is bedridden. She can’t eat unless the food is brought to her. If she refused to eat, would we give up on her, toss up our hands and let her die? No! We would do our best to coax her to cooperate. We could not stand back neutrally and accept that she should be able to starve herself to death with our cooperation.
Perhaps, PIP, in light of the additional material above, your true position is closer and closer to mine the more you carefully think about it. God bless.
According to Tomatis, the mother’s voice is not only an emotional nutrient to the child, but also prepares the child to acquire language after birth.
What if you don’t want to be kept alive this way? Shouldn’t you have a say so in your own health care? I don’t want a doctor to put a feeding tube into my stomach. I remain adamant on this decision.
Hi Doug, I have a question. It seems that both sides in this debate can quote evidence to support their position. Don’t you think that we should give life the benefit of the doubt? p.s. Have you ever read The Professor and the Madman? It is about the development of the Oxford English Dictionary. You seem to like philology-you would like it.
Doug –
“Tomatis is merely presuming, at best, about the “emotional nutrient.”
Here it is again. Dr. Doug know more than the professionals. His persumptions must be something considering his work is taught in most schools. HMMM…what have his studies done for people?
The Tomatis Meathod has helped people with:
Attention Deficit Disorders (ADD)
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorders (ADHD)
Learning delays
Autism
Dyslexia
Balance and Coordination Problems
Sensory integration and motor skill difficulties
Asperger’s Syndrome
Pervasive Development Disorder (PDD)
Down’s Syndrome
I’m so glad Dr. Doug knows more than Dr. Tomatis.
oh, yes, and lets dicredit Dr. Richard Chamberlain. He has no idea what he is saying and alters his finding. Let’s see his biography:
David B. Chamberlain is a California psychologist born in Connecticut in 1928 and educated at Randolph-Macon College, Washington State University, and Boston University. His curiosity about the capacity of prenates and newborns was stimulated by clients having vivid early recall during hypnotherapy beginning in 1974. This inspired a continuing clinical and scholarly effort leading to over fifty publications including the popular book, The Mind of Your Newborn Baby (3rd edition, 1998), currently available in twelve languages. David assisted in organizing the First International Congress on Pre- and Perinatal Psychology held in Toronto, Canada and personally chaired the second congress held in San Diego, California in 1985. From 1991 to 1999 he served as President of the Association for Pre- and Perinatal Psychology and Health (APPPAH). Currently he also serves on the editorial board of the Journal of Prenatal and Perinatal Psychology and Health, and is Founding Editor of birthpsychology.com, the APPPAH gateway on the Internet.
Yes, Dr. Doug knows more than this man.
Sorry, but his credentials stand up.
You can believe what you want. You can stand there with your smug attitude and claim with no medical background that babies don’t have a conscious and don’t feel pain. Dr. Chamberlains work is taught greatly is sensory integration disorder studies. As a matter of fact – my sister, who has a masters in childhood development, has had to go to seminars where he is either a speaker, or his subject matter is taught.
Oh yes, he shouldn’t be listened to. We better tell all those people who are learning from his findings……
“Tomatis is merely presuming, at best, about the “emotional nutrient.”
Valerie: Here it is again. Dr. Doug know more than the professionals. His presumptions must be something considering his work is taught in most schools.
You don’t seriously think his stuff like “emotional nutrient”is taught, do you? That was said without any reasonable explanation, any evidence, any observation that emotion would or could be there. It stands to reason that the capacity to feel emotion would have to be there in the first place for what he said to even be possible, and he offered nothing at all to back up that it is.
…..
I’m so glad Dr. Doug knows more than Dr. Tomatis.
That’s not it. What is operative is that he said “emotional” without any real reason to do so, other than perhaps a desire to put a certain spin on it – if we are assuming that he really meant that emotion was there at that time. There are legions of doctors who would disagree with him. Just what led him to think that “emotion” is involved at such a stage in gestation?
…..
oh, yes, and lets dicredit Dr. Richard Chamberlain. He has no idea what he is saying and alters his finding.
I didn’t “discredit” him nor even try to. The point is that he has a most subjective take on some of the things stated.
I have no doubt he is a good researcher, but he still makes some unproven, speculative leaps. For example – he sees motion, but in no way does that necessarily mean that consciousness is there, because it could be autonomic or reflexive. There’s no EEG results, etc., there’s nothing other than his guess. And even to a layman such as me, that’s not proof nor even reasonable without at least a decent explanation.
……
You can believe what you want. You can stand there with your smug attitude and claim with no medical background that babies don’t have a conscious and don’t feel pain.
Baloney, Valerie. The point is that to a stage in gestation no consciousness is there. “Babies” late in gestation – not the argument, I’m not contesting it, there. In the period in-between, it IS up for argument. That certain responses were observed is not what I am disputing. I’m not being “smug,” I’m being honest and logical. What actual proof of emotion, cognition, etc., is there in what he said?
……
Dr. Chamberlains work is taught greatly is sensory integration disorder studies. As a matter of fact – my sister, who has a masters in childhood development, has had to go to seminars where he is either a speaker, or his subject matter is taught.
Oh yes, he shouldn’t be listened to. We better tell all those people who are learning from his findings……
You’re going way overboard with incorrect generalizations. I didn’t say he shouldn’t be listened to, nor that his research hasn’t shown much truth. He evidently has a lot of good information. That does not mean that his unproven, and from what I have seen – unsupported, assumptions are necessarily true.
I realize that we do not know a lot of things, but inserting such guesses because it fits with our philosophy or because we like the sound of it isn’t logical.
Doug
Carrie: It seems that both sides in this debate can quote evidence to support their position. Don’t you think that we should give life the benefit of the doubt? p.s. Have you ever read The Professor and the Madman? It is about the development of the Oxford English Dictionary. You seem to like philology-you would like it.
I googled it, Carrie – looks great. Have not read it.
I had a longer answer to you all typed up, but then messed up and erased my response, so here’s the essence of it.
No, I don’t think we should give life (all life) the benefit of the doubt. Partly because I don’t feel any need to have more people on earth for the sake of *more,* and partly because there is also the woman to consider. I don’t think we should force her to remain pregnant for the sake of being “in doubt.”
I see this as mainly an argument about a relatively few weeks, say 18 or 20 weeks gestation to 24 or 26. I’m already okay with the restrictions we have at 26 or 24 weeks.
I wouldn’t mind “giving the benefit of the doubt,” let’s say restrictions after 20 weeks, but I’d want the issue to end there, no more trying to ban it outright, etc.
And I don’t really have a dime in this – I’m 48 and my wife has had a hysterectomy. Ain’t gonna be no pregnancies ’round these parts. I don’t plan on having sex where pregnancy could happen.
Best,
Doug
Thanks for your response. I used to be a pro-choicer. I started having questions about my position and at that point decided to give life the benefit of the doubt. I have since become a prolifer and have been for several years.
I am not sure how I did. When I counted all my really “unsure” ones, It was only 4 (out of fifty). But, when I looked carefully over my test, I changed a LOT of them. Like, almost 10. To be fair, I caught what Ithought were a lot of stupid mistakes, but I hope that is the case with all of them. I am extremely nervous now!! I’m still praying and hoping and wishing..
“These terms are really standardized judgments (not infallible) of different likelihoods of recovery according to time and history.”
True. But I take it that permanent means slim to none of significant recovery. Diagnosis is not at all right all of the time. Sometimes not even most of the time. But again, if a person that is conscious pulls out their feeding tube and goes home, we can’t stop them. If a fully conscious person pulls out their chemo drip and goes home, we can’t stop them. We just can’t. So if someone expresses a wish to do the same even in a non-conscious condition, why do we feel that they now have no patient’s rights? They can refuse medical treatment like everybody else could–through legal documents.
“Even though I went to the effort above of debunking (or, hopefully, at least casting doubt upon) what I consider a much too-confident opinion that PVS patients are not conscious at all or will never be conscious again”
I never said never. People wake up. But I was arguing that generally “permanent” means permanent. And pepole that make full or conscious recoveries are often not as severely brain damaged as others. There are wrong diagnoses all the time, but we are starting from the assumptions that these diagnoses are correct.
“And this includes food and water. All human beings deserve to have their life reverenced with great care, in keeping with the inherent dignity and sacredness of life.”
I do agree. I think that people in a PVS state should be given food or water, granted they request that such a procedure be done.
“So, in other words, the value of a human life is not dependent on one’s state of consciousness or ability to function. It is precious regardless of one’s state of ability or disability.”
I agree.
“He has a purpose for each of us, even if we can’t see it.”
But does that give us a legal right to do medical procedures against their will? We can look out for the best interest of the patient but again, if they request not to continue, but we do it anyway because “it is for your own good, even if you can’t see it” is a violation of the patient’s rights.
“For her, she seems to allow for something called “passive” euthanasia.”
By passive euthanasia, I simply mean withdrawing treatment. Which is the same thing as “allowing to die.” Turning off the ventilator, removing life support, are all forms of passive euthanasia, per my (and most others’) definitions.
“For me, the moral status of “passive” vs “active” euthanasia are the same.”
If the doctor relays information to patient or proxy that the prognosis is especially bleak, and that not much else can help them, they can in turn ask the doctor to withhold medical treatment. This is the law. This is a fair divination to the law. If however a patient asks for additional help to bring about death, i.e. direct action in order to commit suicide, not only is that a breach of medical ethics, but a lack of understanding between doctor and patient. usually when a patient asks for a means to intentionally hurt themselves it is for reasons such as lonliness and seemed burden or helplessness, which can be treated. If a patient asks to withhold medical treatment, then the doctor has to respect that wish.
“Whether or not one performs some physical action to bring about death, or whether one chooses not to provide food and water from someone who is nonetheless not dying and is able to digest food, they are both euthanasia.”
So you would consider removal of life support active euthanasia? The vatican will disagree with you on that (V. Due proportion in the use of remedies).
A line is a medical procedure. Not only does is require medical professionals to insert and maintain the nutrition levels in the IV, many times antibiotics are administered to cut down risk of infection.
“Calling it “passive” in certain circumstances does not alter the moral evil being done if death is the end result intended.”
By definition “passive euthanasia” is the allowance to die. because PVS and subsequent requests concerning this state, it stands somewhere between pure active and pure passive euthanasia. But because it is not direct, pure, active euthanasia as defined, it can only be decided by the patient, as it is a withdrawal of medical treatment that ultimately leads to death.
“By asking me to do a moral evil, the person asking me would be violating both my and his dignity as a human being. A request from another to do something morally wrong does not oblige us in any way.”
Again, this is request to withdraw a medical treatment. To put it plainly once again, the patient request whether to accept or deny medical treatment has to be honored, or you are on a slippery slope. When is it morally right to force a medical treatment? When is it morally wrong to do so? When is it morally wrong to obey the patient’s request?
There is no such slippery slope when looking at a situation with the “withdraw” and “add” treatment in mind. Most believe that PVS should be treated as well as any patient, but the patient still have a right to refuse. We have no right to make that decision for them (unless the proxy has to speak for the patient).
“A patient’s advance request, whether verbal or in writing, to withdraw or withhold food and water if at some future time they become PVS, is an illegitimate request because it is a request to do something evil–euthanize the person (see C. above) by omission.”
The doctors are not withholding food or water in the vernacular sense. They are not saying, “well, we fed you spaghetti yesterday but now we are deciding to not. See ya.” In a feeding tube, there is a need for medical care concerning the treatment of nutrition (and usually antibiotics) in the absence of outside means. If a patient says, “please remove my feeding tube. I don’t want any more treatments” this is the time to offer comfort care. It’s is a fine line, but distinct. It sucks for doctors, even watching DNR patients die (as I have) is painful, because you know that they need to be intubated, but there is legally nothing you can do. But it is ultimately the patient’s decision regardless. Many doctors will resign themselves from a case where this is required, but it has to be done or the slippery slope of “if you don’t get this medication you will die, so you hve to recieve it” will occur.
“Another way to describe this, is assisted suicide by advance plan.”
I absolutely understand your point, as I on a personal note pretty much agree (as I have said). As painful as it is, because of the complicated times there are, we need to set the line. I agree with the general standpoint of “patient’s rights,” that is, the ability to refuse standard procedure. As much as a Catholic has moral problems with that, then they should resign from the case. But legally this is how it has to be done! I don’t know of any other case where forced treatment is ethical for the patient. PAS and active euthanasia is a violation of “First Do No Harm.” “Passive euthanasia” as defined is different, and forcing such is a violation of patient’s rights and a “harm” as well, and that is a harm to the ability to make medical decisions for themselves.
“And my point about PVS not being terminal is relevant because it removes the idea that the patient is near death.”
Because of the nature of the beast, a permanent vegetative state is quite near death, as is cancer and the like. The cancer patients can refuse treatment. That causes their death. Why can’t PVS patients refuse treatment?
“So, should we kill (euthanasia by omission) a seriously disabled person if he has asked us to ahead of time in writing? Or do patient’s rights override this?
Respecting patient’s rights is important, but this does not trump all other moral principles. Not taking innocent life is a higher principle. Agree?”
Not taking innocent life is important. At the risk of being repetitive, a cancer patient is surely as innocent as a PVS patient. They can refuse chemo if they want, and this certainly brings about a death, and a slow painful (without painkillers which should be standard) one. I’d say on a moral standpoint, it would be hard to remove the IV. I would think the person is not honoring God’s gift of life. But I can’t MAKE them take their medicine. Only they can do it.
I agree on your basic premesis–about the importance of keeping life. But in our world, you can’t use that to force a patient to recieve treatment against their will. That would be wrong.
Doug –
My appologies for the attack. I’m not sorry for what I said, but I am sorry for how I said it.
You see, with your logic, there will never be any evidence contrary to what you believe. Do you really think that a Dr. who has evidence that a prenate can feel pain is going to be pro-Choice? I have alot more studies that my sister (again I repeat, with a masters in child development – not the right wording…but close) has given me so I can understand my son’s disability. but I will not post them because I’m sure if any of these Dr’s have given an opinion on life matters you will attmept to nitpick/discredit their work based on that.
The Doctors that helped in the studies I already provided are, according to my sister, some of the leaders in sensory integration research. How much better can I get?
Let me ask you something. How do you feel when “proven evidence” is disproven? EX: A long time ago some people (not many, a few) were buried alive. This happened because the evidence at that time proved them to be dead. Some of these people were actually able to get out of their grave. Some have speculated that this is where the folklore of vampires coming back from the dead started. You see, their “proven evidence” was wrong.
I’ll keep going. Back in the 70’s it was “proven evidence” that the more red meat you eat the better. Oops, that wasn’t right. In the 1980’s it was “proven evidence” that the 3 day diet (eat very little for 3 days, eat regularly for 3 days) to loose weight was the best there was around. Some doctors even recommended this. Oops, not so.
When I was in college I was provided with “evidence” that showed I had manic depression. Oops, this evidence was proven wrong. I was given medicine for my, now called Bi Pollar, problems and I almost died because of the horrible depression it caused. You see, at that time, my disablity had not been “proven” yet. I suffered many years because of this. Now the “quack” doctors, as they were so lovingly called before their evidence was taken seriously, are the ones on the frontlines on ADHD with clinical depression studies. This is what I had. Not Bi-Polar. The treatments are vastly different but the symptoms are similiar.
Several years back there was “proven evidence” that HRT (hormone replacement therapy) caused cancer. It was adviced that women correctly go off these meds. This one had a double oops. Not only was the HRT not the cause of the increase in cancer in some patients, but the correct way to go off this med wasn’t the right way for some. I would tell you to ask my Mom about that, but as some here know you would have to talk to her gravestone. Because of going off the meds she went insane. Her third attempt at suicide was her final one. She died June 3, 2004. “Oops” was all we got from the medical professionals. I dont’ blame them, they were only doing what “proven evidence” showed them.
You see, with all your attempts at trying to disprove, or not see, certain studies you could be hindering the help some people need. (Not you, Doug, but the everyone you.)
So, again I will ask, how do you (Doug) feel when proven evidence is disproved? And how would you explain that to the people that became victims of the incorrect “proven evidence”.
Just think of all the people you know that have been victims of this. You hear about it all the time. Research on the development of humans is always changing. Ideas that became fact have now been debunked and ideas that were debunked are now fact.
Will there ever be proof that a fetus can feel pain? True Proof? Probably not, unless you can get a fetus to talk and explain what is going on. However, the fetus does respond to stimulus. You say it is reflexive, involuntary. I say that means that the central nervous system is working. You see, you can’t have involuntary, reflexive movements with out the central nervous system working. That is why some people that have broken their backs are not only imobile but cannot feel their limbs. This is because the central nervous systme has been damaged. But the fetus responds. The fetus moves. How can you say that there isn’t any doubt that pain can happen? There is alot of doubt in many doctors which is why the studies are still ongoing. It amazes me the level of arrogance it has to take to say that it is okay to rip apart a developing human being because pain levels cannot be proven. If you see a person lying on the ground not moving are you going to kick that person to make sure he is dead? Or are you going to gently shake the person to see if they are asleep? How is it not best to be on the side of caution.
Great Post Val,
And Doug, her points are valid. No matter what we show you it’s not enough. Granted, we’re not there yet in medicine but we are certainly farther than we were and all evidence is pointing to the fact that more goes on in the unborn than we have seen. You keep throwing out all these “brain function” theories, but we know virtually nothing about the brain. It’s like the deepest part of the ocean right now. The spinal column, the thalumus, the brain stem…who knows which part does what with a developing child. Look at the article Val posted about the children who virtually had NO brain, but were still talking, thinking and yes, sentient. We just don’t know.
And as for your “I just don’t think we NEED more people” theory. Need more people? They are already created. They are already here. You don’t just eliminate people because they aren’t “needed”…that’s crazy get yourself locked up talk!
If you believe that more people aren’t needed, fine, then work to create a world where less people are conceived, but surely you can see the danger in eliminating people once they exist…That’s Stalin/Hitler/Caligula talk…and it’s scary.
You really do need to rethink what you stand for, and what kind of a “man” you are. Cuz you sound all mucked up to me. Killing people because we don’t need them, indeed!
MK,
there’s a difficulty between yours and Doug’s reasoning. And yes it has to do with valuation – drat! Both of you perceive valuation (especially valuing a ‘human’ as a fixed reality. [Maybe this would be easier to explain if we use numbers.] So whenever Doug hears, writes, or speaks the word ‘human’ he automatically (from personal experience) places human-value at 3-tops and close to ‘0’ for unborn children. [Don’t know if children grow in value from #1 to #3 (in his mind or if this low-valuation is fixed at birth).] You perceive a higher ‘fixed’ point. Let’s say (from your experience) 8 or 9 seems closer. You think that the biggest problem is Doug’s continuous low-balling ‘human’ valuation …. and Doug repeats and repeats … that’s everyone’s even the laws perception.
The ‘problem’ here is assuming that we (you, me, Doug, Hal, the Law, etc…) are anywhere close to the proper valuation of what it means to be ‘human’. Let’s say human-value is 1,7543 and both you and he are arguing about 3 vs 8-9. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh – hhhh don’t think so!
I agree on your basic premesis–about the importance of keeping life. But in our world, you can’t use that to force a patient to recieve treatment against their will. That would be wrong.
OK. Perhaps this thread is dead now. But I can’t resist one more comment for PIP.
First, I would like to say that in my comments I have never actually advocated using force against another person. I advocate refusing to participate in a decision by a patient that is tantamount to directing others to share in bringing about his own suicide, which is what I claim any advance directive is doing that says to withhold food and water if a patient become PVS. I advocate, that if a person is aware and able to communicate, and they want to end their lives by starvation and dehydration, that everything should be done to try to persuade them to change their mind. How many depressed and lonely elderly folks would reverse a decision to stop eating if they felt they had the love and support from family and friends that we all need in difficult times? Perhaps grandma in a nursing facility would start eating again if we visited her regularly, listened to her, held her hand, and told her that we love her.
I worry that we are fast becoming a culture that quickly abandons making the effort to continue to offer love and compassion to people who are suffering. We stand idly by, indifferent, until they conclude there is nothing left to live for and they might as well end things; then we help them starve themselves to death in the name of patient autonomy and “patient’s rights.” And I’m afraid the culture of the medical profession is more and more supportive of this “give up and let them die in the name of autonomy” approach.
PIP, I suggest that you are perhaps trying to operate out of two different conflicting moral frameworks at the same time, without really being aware of this.
On the one hand, in terms of your own personal conscience, you pretty much agree with the basic moral principles that I have promoted as normative for how we should behave in the medical sphere (respect the dignity of life; don’t take life; feed those who can’t feed themselves, etc.). So this is good.
But, on the other hand, you are operating also in another moral system that ends up contradicting the basic principles that you accept personally in your own conscience. This alternate system, I presume, you have picked up from the environment you are in, whatever that is (perhaps medical professionals that you have been around in a hospital setting; perhaps in certain college classes?) This alternate system has one overriding maxim that serves as the sole factor determining whether or not anything done for the patent is classified as good or bad: does the patient desire it (i.e. consent)? If the patient does–the action is good. If the patient does not–the action is bad. Period. Nothing else matters.
The problem here is that this alternate moral system, headed by the principle of patient-consent-determines-what-is-good, is inherently that of moral relativism. How? Because this is essentially putting in place a system that says that each individual person’s idea of right and wrong is the only thing that matters as far as that person is concerned. What is right for me is what I say is right for me. And so on for each person. So, this is why the desires of the patient are the only thing considered in regard to treatment for a given patient under this moral system. The personal moral standards of caregivers are fine for themselves–but these only apply to them and not their patients. When a caregiver treats a patient, the only moral code relevant is the personal code of the patient. And therefore, the ‘good’ for any individual patient is determined only by what that patient says is good. If he wants it, it becomes ‘good’ by definition. If he does not want it, it is ‘bad’ by definition regardless of what any of the caregivers think.
This sort of system is one of moral relativism because it ultimately denies that there is any such thing as one overarching moral code of right and wrong that applies to all human beings. Rather, this system believes that there is no universal right and wrong–only individual right and wrong. PIP, this is what is behind, I believe, your saying that if a patient in PVS has made an advance statement to withhold food and water (resulting in their death by this omission) that it would be wrong not to withhold food and water because it is what the patient wanted. Even though you personally agree that we should never starve to death another human being, you seem to ignore this principle and exchange it for a principle that is willing to transmute starvation into a good thing simply because the patient desires it. What one moral source (your conscience) calls evil, is switched to a ‘good’ in this alternate system of relativism.
But this situation, I hope is evident, cannot stand in the long run. We are forced to answer this basic, fundamental question about human morality: Does the truth about what is good and bad in human action derive only from within each individual person and from nowhere else? Or, does the truth about what is good and bad in human activity come from something beyond ourselves–something bigger than us; something that transcends us? The answer to this is hugely important. If the truth about morals is simply relative to what each person wants as an isolated source–then, quite literally–there is no such thing as a common standard of moral norms of right and wrong that apply universally to all. There is no support left for making any claim to moral truths that should apply to all people.
So, which do you think is right? Are there moral truths that apply to everyone equally and that oblige us all equally, no matter what the circumstances? Or, is moral truth simply a private thing such that the determination of right and wrong never comes from a common or universal standard, but only from each person?
PIP, when you agree in principle, that certain moral norms do apply to all people, (such as do not kill the innocent), you are tacitly acknowledging that the source of valuation of human moral conduct comes from beyond us, and this is why it applies to all of us, because we do not determine for ourselves what is good and bad, but rather are called as human persons to recognize that the voice of conscience within us actually points us to a standard that comes from outside us. We recognize that we ought, in freedom, to accept the reality of the moral realm that comes into us from without because this universal moral framework is a necessary key to living a fully human life.
But then, on the other hand, when you accept the moral framework that says merely because a patient has called something ‘good’ with respect to themselves, that it therefore is good, and you are willing to disregard all other moral principles of right and wrong and allow only the desire of the patient to determine what is right and wrong regarding their medical care, you have left one moral world behind–the one that I believe your conscience tells you is true and you want to believe is true; the one that says there are universally right and wrong actions–and exchanged it for another in which patient consent obliterates the universal moral code and subjects all determination of good and bad to its unpredictable hegemony.
PIP, both can’t be true. Either there is such a thing as a universal moral realm where every human person is accountable to the same norms, or, there isn’t. You may not realize it, but if you accept a medical moral system that permits the patient’s will to be the absolute and only standard that decides what actions on your part are called good or bad, then you have in effect, by going along with this, admitted that there is no such thing as moral truth that applies to all.
If there is moral truth that applies to all and that obliges us all, then there has to be limits to what a patient can direct others to do. The patient’s desire has to be restricted by the boundaries of the universal moral truth. In this system, a health care provider would be obliged to say to a patient, yes, I will abide by your wishes regarding your treatment, so long as they do not violate the common human standard of right and wrong.
When you say that you would permit food and water to be withheld even to the point of causing death from a PVS patient who has expressed a desire for this, while at the same time saying you accept a personal principle that we are obliged to feed those who cannot feed themselves and we should never kill, what you are admitting by this is that your moral principle only applies to you, and not to anyone else who does not agree with it in a particular situation.
Do you think there are any moral standards that are higher than the standard of respecting the patient’s wishes? To me, the standard of not doing something which by deliberate act or omission intends to bring about a person’s death, is a higher standard than patient’s rights. The simple response to a document that directs a medical care provider to withhold food and water is: “sorry, we don’t kill people here; this is a place of healing, not of helping people to kill themselves.” Or, does a signed piece of paper suffice to turn an evil into a good?
Bottom line: In the medical world today, is all right and wrong taken to be determined exclusively and only by what patients want? If this is the case, then the medical profession has abandoned entirely its historical obligation to do no harm. For if the criteria for harm changes with every patient, there really is no longer any real criteria at all. It has been replaced by an empty charade of patient-consent-determines-all-morality, which in the end doesn’t mean anything if there is nothing above this. This will lead to a world where doctors and nurses can justify doing anything to a patient so long as they wave a signed piece of paper in the air saying “consent.” I fear we are now fast moving in that direction. Perhaps you can help reverse this dangerous course among your circle of influence?
For more explanation of the Catholic position on providing nutrition and hydration to patients in a vegetative state that Jill drew attention to in her original post, please also read the explanatory comment that the Vatican released concurrently with the two official “responses” to questions about nutrition and hydration. This link is not in the original post. I recommend it highly because it was written to go with the brief responses and helps explain and clarify Catholic teaching, aiming to reduce misunderstanding. I think it is well done, and I totally concur with it. See the Vatican web page here for the commentary. If anyone is still reading this, God bless you!
Bro Francis,
I didn’t read all of what you wrote, just skimmed a little bit, but it all sounds pretty good. As an orthodox Catholic I appreciate your long post. These issues are crucially important and need to be clarified.
There is another very good document: a speech by Pope John Paul II given on March 20, 2004:
TO THE PARTICIPANTS IN THE INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS
ON “LIFE-SUSTAINING TREATMENTS AND VEGETATIVE STATE:
SCIENTIFIC ADVANCES AND ETHICAL DILEMMAS”
Use this compact URL
http://tinyurl.com/5u35s
God bless.
John,
Reminds me of spinal tap…turn the volume up to “11”! lol
But you’re right, how do you put a definitive value on human life. How do you treat life as something to be weighed or measured?
Valerie: You see, with your logic, there will never be any evidence contrary to what you believe. Do you really think that a Dr. who has evidence that a prenate can feel pain is going to be pro-Choice? I have alot more studies that my sister (again I repeat, with a masters in child development – not the right wording…but close) has given me so I can understand my son’s disability. but I will not post them because I’m sure if any of these Dr’s have given an opinion on life matters you will attmept to nitpick/discredit their work based on that.
It is not that the doctors are “discredited,” it is that they are assuming. I think some doctors think that prenates can feel pain – heck, I’d bet that late enough in gestation most doctors would think so. They’re not all pro-life. If pain is a concern then anestesia is often recommended, and I’ve seen doctors say it should be used in abortions from 20 weeks on, or thereabouts, to be safe.
……
The Doctors that helped in the studies I already provided are, according to my sister, some of the leaders in sensory integration research. How much better can I get?
That’s not the issue. My point is that when something like “emotional nutrient” is said, where is the proof that emotions of any type can be present in the first place? What observations were made for the doctor to think that? No such information was given. As far as I can tell, it is merely assuming the capacity for emotions and then going to the idea that the sounds must be “emotional nutrients.”
……
Let me ask you something. How do you feel when “proven evidence” is disproven? EX: A long time ago some people (not many, a few) were buried alive. This happened because the evidence at that time proved them to be dead. Some of these people were actually able to get out of their grave. Some have speculated that this is where the folklore of vampires coming back from the dead started. You see, their “proven evidence” was wrong.
I’ll keep going. Back in the 70’s it was “proven evidence” that the more red meat you eat the better. Oops, that wasn’t right. In the 1980’s it was “proven evidence” that the 3 day diet (eat very little for 3 days, eat regularly for 3 days) to loose weight was the best there was around. Some doctors even recommended this. Oops, not so.
When I was in college I was provided with “evidence” that showed I had manic depression. Oops, this evidence was proven wrong. I was given medicine for my, now called Bi Pollar, problems and I almost died because of the horrible depression it caused. You see, at that time, my disablity had not been “proven” yet. I suffered many years because of this. Now the “quack” doctors, as they were so lovingly called before their evidence was taken seriously, are the ones on the frontlines on ADHD with clinical depression studies. This is what I had. Not Bi-Polar. The treatments are vastly different but the symptoms are similiar.
Several years back there was “proven evidence” that HRT (hormone replacement therapy) caused cancer. It was adviced that women correctly go off these meds. This one had a double oops. Not only was the HRT not the cause of the increase in cancer in some patients, but the correct way to go off this med wasn’t the right way for some. I would tell you to ask my Mom about that, but as some here know you would have to talk to her gravestone. Because of going off the meds she went insane. Her third attempt at suicide was her final one. She died June 3, 2004. “Oops” was all we got from the medical professionals. I dont’ blame them, they were only doing what “proven evidence” showed them.
You see, with all your attempts at trying to disprove, or not see, certain studies you could be hindering the help some people need. (Not you, Doug, but the everyone you.)
I see what the studies prove. What the studies did not prove is that there is emotion there, in the fetus, at those times.
……
So, again I will ask, how do you (Doug) feel when proven evidence is disproved? And how would you explain that to the people that became victims of the incorrect “proven evidence”.
Just think of all the people you know that have been victims of this. You hear about it all the time. Research on the development of humans is always changing. Ideas that became fact have now been debunked and ideas that were debunked are now fact.
Valerie, there are two different things here. Yes – I know what you mean about things previously accepted which are proven wrong later on. Yet with the pain/emotions issue, it is not that it’s been “proven that there are no emotions.” That kind of proof of a negative isn’t really any proof at all. The most that can be said is that we don’t know. If there would be an analogy here, it’d be something like saying that embryonic motion means that the embryo is mentally conscious. Then, later, it’s shown that the motion is just reflexive. Again, the negative cannot be proven, but what those doctors said is not any real proof that emotions are there. What did they say that really proves to you that emotion is there?
…..
Will there ever be proof that a fetus can feel pain? True Proof? Probably not, unless you can get a fetus to talk and explain what is going on. However, the fetus does respond to stimulus. You say it is reflexive, involuntary. I say that means that the central nervous system is working. You see, you can’t have involuntary, reflexive movements with out the central nervous system working. That is why some people that have broken their backs are not only imobile but cannot feel their limbs. This is because the central nervous systme has been damaged. But the fetus responds. The fetus moves. How can you say that there isn’t any doubt that pain can happen? There is alot of doubt in many doctors which is why the studies are still ongoing. It amazes me the level of arrogance it has to take to say that it is okay to rip apart a developing human being because pain levels cannot be proven. If you see a person lying on the ground not moving are you going to kick that person to make sure he is dead? Or are you going to gently shake the person to see if they are asleep? How is it not best to be on the side of caution.
If an EEG showed the presence of brainwaves that we see with consciousness, that would be one big thing, but they don’t appear until later in gestation – usually the weeks in the middle 20s.
Yes, there is response to stimulus, and yes, the central nervous system is working, to some extent, and it the extent that we are arguing about. For the 20 weeker, I think there is plenty of proof that with normal development, nerve impulses will be getting to the thalamus. But the thalamus is not connected to the cortex yet, and the cortex isn’t developed or operational enough to process the sensory information. I realize it is a question if the thalamus, alone can constitute some kind of “consciousness.” However, cognition, higher brain functions like reasoning, memory, voluntary movement, thought, learning, coordinating sensory information, etc., take place within the cortex, and I have yet to see any proof that it happens without the cortex in normal brains.
I say “normal” because of the examples of individuals with severely-damaged cortexes who exhibit behavior that may mean the cortex isn’t the end-all of this stuff. The brain, and nervous tissue in general, to some extent, will try to make new pathways and restore function if damaged. Even if this occurs, though, it wouldn’t mean that normally-developing fetuses have anything extra in the thalamus, etc. It remains a question.
Doug
It is not that the doctors are “discredited,” it is that they are assuming.
Are you not merely assuming that the fetus doesn’t feel pain? Are you not assuming that the cortex is the only place where consciousness can lie, based on evidence you have seen and heard? Why do you deny doctors the right to “assume” based on evidence they have seen and heard and investigated personally?
I see what the studies prove. What the studies did not prove is that there is emotion there, in the fetus, at those times.
Why do you assume they must have emotion in order to feel pain?
It remains a question.
If it remains a question, and there is a chance you are wrong, why are you willing to allow unborn children to be (“possibly”) suffering to death every day, simply because you don’t “need” them?
MK: And Doug, her points are valid. No matter what we show you it’s not enough. Granted, we’re not there yet in medicine but we are certainly farther than we were and all evidence is pointing to the fact that more goes on in the unborn than we have seen. You keep throwing out all these “brain function” theories, but we know virtually nothing about the brain. It’s like the deepest part of the ocean right now. The spinal column, the thalumus, the brain stem…who knows which part does what with a developing child. Look at the article Val posted about the children who virtually had NO brain, but were still talking, thinking and yes, sentient. We just don’t know.
MK – agreed there’s a lot we don’t know, yet there also is a lot we do. If there was anything really solid, like an EEG showing that the brain of a 20-weeker was “thinking,” that it had cognition, that there was the mental activity we see with consiousness, that would be good enough for me. We don’t have anything like that, however. Also agree that the kids Val mentioned raise good questions. It’s no proof that normally-developing fetuses would have similar characteristics, but it is interesting stuff.
……
And as for your “I just don’t think we NEED more people” theory. Need more people? They are already created. They are already here. You don’t just eliminate people because they aren’t “needed”…that’s crazy get yourself locked up talk!
We don’t need more people on earth to the extent that we deny a pregnant woman her wishes – that is what I’m saying.
Doug
“It remains a question.”
If it remains a question, and there is a chance you are wrong, why are you willing to allow unborn children to be (“possibly”) suffering to death every day, simply because you don’t “need” them?
Bethany, if suffering is a concern, then anesthesia would be a good thing, and I think in practice it is adminstered now, or at least many doctors think it is indicated after a point in gestation.
It’s not that I don’t need them, it’s that the woman may want to end the pregnancy. I don’t “not need then” where I would tell a woman with a wanted pregnancy to have an abortion, and I don’t need them to the point that I’d tell a woman with an unwanted pregnancy to continue it.
I’m saying that the concerns of others do not trump the woman in this case.
Doug
John, to: MK, there’s a difficulty between yours and Doug’s reasoning. And yes it has to do with valuation – drat! Both of you perceive valuation (especially valuing a ‘human’ as a fixed reality. [Maybe this would be easier to explain if we use numbers.] So whenever Doug hears, writes, or speaks the word ‘human’ he automatically (from personal experience) places human-value at 3-tops and close to ‘0’ for unborn children. [Don’t know if children grow in value from #1 to #3 (in his mind or if this low-valuation is fixed at birth).] You perceive a higher ‘fixed’ point. Let’s say (from your experience) 8 or 9 seems closer. You think that the biggest problem is Doug’s continuous low-balling ‘human’ valuation …. and Doug repeats and repeats … that’s everyone’s even the laws perception.
The ‘problem’ here is assuming that we (you, me, Doug, Hal, the Law, etc…) are anywhere close to the proper valuation of what it means to be ‘human’. Let’s say human-value is 1,7543 and both you and he are arguing about 3 vs 8-9. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh – hhhh don’t think so!
John, that assumes there is some “proper” valuation in the first place, and it does not work like that.
The law is clear, regardless of the extent to which you agree with it or not. I am not saying there is any certain valuation for the unborn. Obviously, some of them are wanted to a huge, massive, towering extent, and some others are not, only wanted a little, but enough that the pregnancy is willingly continued. Others are not wanted, on balance, at all.
Doug
“It is not that the doctors are “discredited,” it is that they are assuming.”
Bethany: Are you not merely assuming that the fetus doesn’t feel pain? Are you not assuming that the cortex is the only place where consciousness can lie, based on evidence you have seen and heard? Why do you deny doctors the right to “assume” based on evidence they have seen and heard and investigated personally?
Prior to a point in gestation, yes – I am assuming no pain is felt. Does the zygote feel pain? Does the embryo? There is evidence that the fetus does, after a point in gestation. Without evidence, of course I assume it’s not there. The capacity to “feel” would have to be present, before it’s even a question.
……
I see what the studies prove. What the studies did not prove is that there is emotion there, in the fetus, at those times.”
Why do you assume they must have emotion in order to feel pain?
Based on the definition of “feel.” I’m saying it’s being emotionally affected, having conscious sensation, etc. The impulses getting to the thalamus isn’t really at issue. But is that “feeling”?
Doug
Bethany, if suffering is a concern, then anesthesia would be a good thing, and I think in practice it is adminstered now, or at least many doctors think it is indicated after a point in gestation.
So all this time, why have we even been discussing pain? If you consider it to be a moot point?
That is so insulting. You have us jump through all the hoops to show you proof and evidence of fetal pain, and then when we finally have evidence that the fetus might feel pain, you say, “oh well, anesthetize them, THEN kill them.” THEN it’s okay. Yeah.
It’s not that I don’t need them, it’s that the woman may want to end the pregnancy. I don’t “not need then” where I would tell a woman with a wanted pregnancy to have an abortion, and I don’t need them to the point that I’d tell a woman with an unwanted pregnancy to continue it.
Couldn’t you have said the same thing for a slave owner?
You could have said, in justification of slavery:
“It’s not that I don’t need those people, necessarily. It’s that the slave owner really may NEED help, and may want a Negro to do the work for them. And I don’t need those slaves enough to the point that I’d tell a slave owner with a slave to let him go free. ”
If one questioned you about their feelings, you could say, “Well, they’re not really human beings and there is no evidence that they have “emotions” like an adult white man anyway… I wouldn’t care if they were anesthetized throughout their beatings and when they were hung on a tree though, if there is a chance they can feel it the way we do.”
Prior to a point in gestation, yes – I am assuming no pain is felt. Does the zygote feel pain? Does the embryo? There is evidence that the fetus does, after a point in gestation. Without evidence, of course I assume it’s not there. The capacity to “feel” would have to be present, before it’s even a question.
So then what makes your assumption better than the assumption of a doctor, since you agree they are both simply assumptions? Why shouldn’t we err on the side of life?
It’s not that I don’t need them, it’s that the woman may want to end the pregnancy. I don’t “not need then” where I would tell a woman with a wanted pregnancy to have an abortion, and I don’t need them to the point that I’d tell a woman with an unwanted pregnancy to continue it.
If a woman doesn’t “want” to continue raising her newborn, and she doesn’t “want” to put him or her up for adoption, why shouldn’t she have the right to anesthetize her baby and then kill her baby?
“Bethany, if suffering is a concern, then anesthesia would be a good thing, and I think in practice it is adminstered now, or at least many doctors think it is indicated after a point in gestation.”
Bethany: So all this time, why have we even been discussing pain? If you consider it to be a moot point? That is so insulting. You have us jump through all the hoops to show you proof and evidence of fetal pain, and then when we finally have evidence that the fetus might feel pain, you say, “oh well, anesthetize them, THEN kill them.” THEN it’s okay. Yeah.
Oh brother – in no way is that insulting. Pain/sentience/cognitive ability – that is what we were arguing about. I realize that there is a time when some doctors and other people think that pain is possible, while other doctors, etc., don’t think it can be there. I’m not saying “it’s a moot point,” I’m saying that anesthesia can make up for the “doubt” if that is a concern. This is really only a few weeks of gestation that is really in question here – 20 – 24? It’s legal, and if pain is a concern then address it, that’s what I say.
……
“It’s not that I don’t need them, it’s that the woman may want to end the pregnancy. I don’t “not need then” where I would tell a woman with a wanted pregnancy to have an abortion, and I don’t need them to the point that I’d tell a woman with an unwanted pregnancy to continue it.”
Couldn’t you have said the same thing for a slave owner?
Anybody can say anything, but the slaves were not inside the body of a person, and definitely had their own desires, could suffer, etc.
……
You could have said, in justification of slavery:
“It’s not that I don’t need those people, necessarily. It’s that the slave owner really may NEED help, and may want a Negro to do the work for them. And I don’t need those slaves enough to the point that I’d tell a slave owner with a slave to let him go free. “
Again, anybody can say anything, and there are a relatively few people right now who would be for slavery. I don’t value the “need” of any prospective slaveowner nearly enough for it to trump the desire of those who would be slaves. Likewise, I don’t value the “need” of people who say abortion is wrong enough to trump the desire of pregnant women.
……
If one questioned you about their feelings, you could say, “Well, they’re not really human beings and there is no evidence that they have “emotions” like an adult white man anyway… I wouldn’t care if they were anesthetized throughout their beatings and when they were hung on a tree though, if there is a chance they can feel it the way we do.”
Well, I don’t say that, and in fact almost nobody does. That “slaves” have emotion is not in doubt.
Doug
“Prior to a point in gestation, yes – I am assuming no pain is felt. Does the zygote feel pain? Does the embryo? There is evidence that the fetus does, after a point in gestation. Without evidence, of course I assume it’s not there. The capacity to “feel” would have to be present, before it’s even a question.”
So then what makes your assumption better than the assumption of a doctor, since you agree they are both simply assumptions? Why shouldn’t we err on the side of life?
Bethany, it’s not simply a matter of “life or not,” there, since there’s also the pregnant woman to consider. If we’re going to take away her freedom in this matter then I think there should be something provable, at the very least, and not just possible doubt.
As for doctors’ assumptions, there are some doctors who have stated outrageous things, IMO, like “pain being felt” at a stage in gestation where it’s pretty ludicrous.
If a doctor assumes pain at 30 weeks, then I think that’s quite reasonable, since most fetuses will have conscious sensation by then.
24 weeks – iffy but not a “bad” assumption, IMO, based on what we know.
20 weeks – getting into the territory where there really isn’t proof at all. And earlier than that, I’d say a doctor’s assumption there is not based on medical science or knowledge, but just based on dogma, and his dogma is not a good reason, at all, IMO, to restrict the woman’s freedom.
An example from what Valerie posted:
Hearing is not the same as listening, a critical truth underlying Tomatis’ work.
“It’s not that I don’t need them, it’s that the woman may want to end the pregnancy. I don’t “not need then” where I would tell a woman with a wanted pregnancy to have an abortion, and I don’t need them to the point that I’d tell a woman with an unwanted pregnancy to continue it.”
Bethany: If a woman doesn’t “want” to continue raising her newborn, and she doesn’t “want” to put him or her up for adoption, why shouldn’t she have the right to anesthetize her baby and then kill her baby?
Because the right to life has been attributed. Because the newborn is not inside her body. Because the baby is viable. Somebody else can care for the baby at that point, and I don’t see the woman’s desire to not have it be adopted as the most important thing then.
Doug
@Doug,
the problem I outlined above is that of a ‘fixed’ valuation. One very simple way to envision such is that you presume values are gained over time. So that an adult can perceive her own value as being superior to her ‘baby’… and therefore, has the right (based on her wants) to kill said life. If the babe was pure sapphire, would he/she have more ‘value’…. a value worth preserving?
I ran into this problem before … with Diana. She would accept only argumentation from the physical and intellectual (logic) aspects of being human. After a while, I wondered where she found the value in herself but (because she was a atheist) she held no value for the human being. [I had asked how a value like body autonomy be applied to anyone (who has no value at all. Kinda like 0=human being + 5=body autonomy = Grand total = 0).] Her response was very much like yours … she felt highly valued.
Problem is this ‘feeling’ is the area of emotions and much of this region defies reduction to the intellectual or physical spheres. MK and Bethany (and many others here) assume a emotional-meaning-value to human life. Others impart aspects of this emotional value, these are: teacher-student; doctor-patient (not doctor-‘client’); parent-child; spousal; … etc all these and more gave Diana her ‘self-valuation’, her self-esteme. It is the same source for our laws (according to Diana) … society as a whole. However, there is one set of laws, by which others steer and that is the basic ‘rights’ of the constitution. This set of principles is situated distinctly because these are (1) inalienable; (2) God-given at creation of the human. There ain’t no right to be ‘killed’ & right are attributed at conception, not birth.
I do not know how anyone can claim human-significance (not popularity nor fame) without reference to a God. [And dats a value too, one where the valuation attributed to humans is beyond estimate!]
John: the problem I outlined above is that of a ‘fixed’ valuation. One very simple way to envision such is that you presume values are gained over time. So that an adult can perceive her own value as being superior to her ‘baby’… and therefore, has the right (based on her wants) to kill said life. If the babe was pure sapphire, would he/she have more ‘value’…. a value worth preserving?
John, that’s really not it. I guess that it can be gained over time, i.e. many people would rather have a miscarriage versus having their born child of X years being killed, but it certainly doesn’t have to be that way. There isn’t any “fixed” valuation for the unborn, even in the case of the one hypothetical woman – she may not want kids at a given time, and want them very much later on. I do agree that many would say the woman is worth more than the baby – and many times the husband, for example, would want the wife’s life saved over the baby’s, if it came to that. Pro-Choice isn’t saying it has to be that way, either. If a given woman wants to continue the pregnancy even at the risk of her life, that’s okay with me. I leave it up to her. There are several examples of valuation, right there, and in no way do they have to be “fixed.”
And as always in the abortion argument – it”s not only the unborn that are considered. There is the pregnant woman, and there there isn’t any doubt of sentience, desire, rights, value, etc., so this is weighed against the desire of some people for the life of the unborn to be paramount. For pregnant women, I don’t think it is really that they feel the unborn are “inferior” to them – it’s really just if the unborn are wanted or not. There need be no “blame” nor “guilt” assigned to the unborn, and I think that’d be silly anyway. Bottom line: just wanted or unwanted.
……
I ran into this problem before … with Diana. She would accept only argumentation from the physical and intellectual (logic) aspects of being human. After a while, I wondered where she found the value in herself but (because she was a atheist) she held no value for the human being. [I had asked how a value like body autonomy be applied to anyone (who has no value at all. Kinda like 0=human being + 5=body autonomy = Grand total = 0).] Her response was very much like yours … she felt highly valued.
Problem is this ‘feeling’ is the area of emotions and much of this region defies reduction to the intellectual or physical spheres. MK and Bethany (and many others here) assume a emotional-meaning-value to human life. Others impart aspects of this emotional value, these are: teacher-student; doctor-patient (not doctor-‘client’); parent-child; spousal; … etc all these and more gave Diana her ‘self-valuation’, her self-esteme. It is the same source for our laws (according to Diana) … society as a whole. However, there is one set of laws, by which others steer and that is the basic ‘rights’ of the constitution. This set of principles is situated distinctly because these are (1) inalienable; (2) God-given at creation of the human. There ain’t no right to be ‘killed’ & right are attributed at conception, not birth.
Well, again – there’s no proof of a god or gods, and the Constitution wasn’t written with the unborn in mind, and doesn’t apply to the unborn. Not saying it’s impossible that it ever would be, but it hasn’t been that way in the 231 years since 1776.
I would not think that Diana said “no value” for human beings because of Atheism. That wouldn’t necessarily have anything to do with it. People have desires, and these get expressed in law, and in the morality of various groups – societies, etc. No question that the rights to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, etc., are important concepts for people. In general, we want to live, want to be free, etc. By definition we want to be happy – I’d say that happiness is getting what we want. Only natural, then, that we attribute the right to life to “us” (and I realize that just what constitutes “us” can be argued.) It’s also no surprise that many people support a pregnant woman in being free and pursuing her happiness by choosing to have an abortion.
……
I do not know how anyone can claim human-significance (not popularity nor fame) without reference to a God. [And dats a value too, one where the valuation attributed to humans is beyond estimate!]
What does God necessarily have to do with it? In general people want things, and each other, regardless of any religious stuff or not. In general we want to live, and thus we have the concept of right to life. I know you’re not happy with society deeming the “we” to apply after birth. And we want to be free, etc.
If anything, can you explain more about the “emotional-meaning-value to human life”? Sure there is emotion involved – without it there would be no morality in the first place. Were we not to value a thing, there’d be no laws nor ethical/moral feeling in it’s favor. To me, it sounds like some sort of mysticism, and I don’t mean that to sound critical. But it surely is a good example of people simply seeing things differently.
Looking up “mysticism,” I see “a doctrine of an immediate spiritual intuition of truths believed to transcend ordinary understanding.” That sounds pretty right-on to me. People feeling “there has to be more” than this earthly existence, etc.
Best,
Doug
By definition we want to be happy – I’d say that happiness is getting what we want
This is another area where we differ. I do not think that is what happiness is about.
@Doug,
Bethany was correct in her short answer. For God-believers ‘happiness is what HE wants’. I used to tell kids that I’m for #1 too …. only thing is I’m not #1.
OK, when I was taking philosophy, we kept running into philosophers who were without doubt very bright, but tended to get a little ‘weird’ because they tended to warp their convictions so that it’d fit all circumstances. Kinda what some people complain about me doing.
This prof said that a philosophy based on common language would likely yield the best results, with very few ‘warped-ideas’. So I devised a little personal philosophy which is language-based. It seems to make a huge amount of sense (for me) and has stood-up quite well for the last few decades.
Draw a picture of three interlocking rings (something like the Olympic rings) except these are two-dimensional (1-up + 2-lower) – now a larger circle circling the group of 3. Each circle can be named: physical, intellectual, emotional and the large one is ‘faith’.
Each,in turn has its own goal or end-point. For physical reality the end-point is ‘purpose’; for intellectual it is ‘understanding; for emotional aspects – ‘meaning’ and, for ‘faith’ – ‘significance’. Almost all words fall someplace in this schema. For instance, while ‘sign’ is at the center of the 3 circles; ‘symbol’ is at the center of the 4.
more later………. snooze time!!!!!!!!
“By definition we want to be happy – I’d say that happiness is getting what we want”
Bethany: This is another area where we differ. I do not think that is what happiness is about.
?? Seems obvious to me that that’s the way it is.
Bethany was correct in her short answer. For God-believers ‘happiness is what HE wants’. I used to tell kids that I’m for #1 too …. only thing is I’m not #1.
John, then your conception of “what HE wants” is what you want – the end result is the same, whether filtered through “faith” or not. Or, it could be said that due to your beliefs you want certain things.
……
OK, when I was taking philosophy, we kept running into philosophers who were without doubt very bright, but tended to get a little ‘weird’ because they tended to warp their convictions so that it’d fit all circumstances. Kinda what some people complain about me doing.
This prof said that a philosophy based on common language would likely yield the best results, with very few ‘warped-ideas’. So I devised a little personal philosophy which is language-based. It seems to make a huge amount of sense (for me) and has stood-up quite well for the last few decades.
Draw a picture of three interlocking rings (something like the Olympic rings) except these are two-dimensional (1-up + 2-lower) – now a larger circle circling the group of 3. Each circle can be named: physical, intellectual, emotional and the large one is ‘faith’.
Each,in turn has its own goal or end-point. For physical reality the end-point is ‘purpose’; for intellectual it is ‘understanding; for emotional aspects – ‘meaning’ and, for ‘faith’ – ‘significance’. Almost all words fall someplace in this schema. For instance, while ‘sign’ is at the center of the 3 circles; ‘symbol’ is at the center of the 4.
Well hey, man, that’s pretty far out. I think that faith is primarily emotional, that the significance of one’s faith is derived from one’s emotion. Maybe I just need to get to sleep too.
I don’t see you warping your convictions to fit all circumstances. I’d just say that your convictions don’t necessarily fit other people because they don’t believe the same things as you.
This is my favorite time of year. Good night, John.
Doug
Bethany: This is another area where we differ. I do not think that is what happiness is about.
?? Seems obvious to me that that’s the way it is.
No, I’ve found that true happiness only comes from putting others needs and desires before your own. That’s where we differ. You think your desires and needs come first.
Well, I don’t say that, and in fact almost nobody does. That “slaves” have emotion is not in doubt.
Of course they don’t say that now Doug, but they said it then.
And if not for people like us, you’d still be saying it now!
John, then your conception of “what HE wants” is what you want – the end result is the same, whether filtered through “faith” or not. Or, it could be said that due to your beliefs you want certain things.
No, through his beliefs he “chooses” to do certain things. Choosing to do something doesn’t always require a desire to do it.
A man can go to war to protect his country, without “wanting” to fight or kill people, but knowing that it is sometimes necessary.
He can choose to do so for the greater good of the country, without necessarily DESIRING to fight. In fact, he could DREAD fighting, but still go and do so.
His desire is to protect his country. His actions are to fight in war. He does something he does not desire in order to bring about a greater good for others.
Bethany: This is another area where we differ. I do not think that is what happiness is about.
“?? Seems obvious to me that that’s the way it is.”
No, I’ve found that true happiness only comes from putting others needs and desires before your own. That’s where we differ. You think your desires and needs come first.
It’s all the same thing. If you want to devote your life to the service of others, that is fine – it’s still what you desire to do. Priest, Peace-Corps worker, mother, butcher, baker, candlestick-maker – it’s done because the person wants to do it more than they want to do something else (for whatever reasons).
Mother Theresa (though I realize many question her actions) got up each day and did what she wanted to do, picking from her choices. You’re a mom, and though at times there could be other things that you want to do, you want most to tend to your children’s needs – and that’s what you do.
Short of physical compulsion otherwise, we all do what we want the most, or that which we have the least distate for, among our available choices.
Doug
“Well, I don’t say that, and in fact almost nobody does. That “slaves” have emotion is not in doubt.”
MK: Of course they don’t say that now Doug, but they said it then.
And if not for people like us, you’d still be saying it now!
I think you’re embellishing a good bit there, MK. Slavery has been “in” and “out” a vast number of times in history, looking back through the world’s civilizations. There are places on earth where it’s going on now.
I imagine there were people in the US against abortion in the 1860s, but it’s not like they alone were responsible for the ending of slavery here.
Doug
“John, then your conception of “what HE wants” is what you want – the end result is the same, whether filtered through “faith” or not. Or, it could be said that due to your beliefs you want certain things.”
Bethany: No, through his beliefs he “chooses” to do certain things. Choosing to do something doesn’t always require a desire to do it.
I disagree. Yes it does. Regardless of “faith” or not, the individual has to want a thing enough, or want it more than his other available choices, to pick it. If it’s done, “because of my beliefs,” all fine and good, but the desire to do it is still there.
……
A man can go to war to protect his country, without “wanting” to fight or kill people, but knowing that it is sometimes necessary.
Nope – he wants to do that more than he wants the alternatives – not protecting his country, being a “draft-dodger,” etc. This isn’t saying he “wants war” in a vacuum. It’s saying that he’s making his choice upon what he wants the most, from what his options are.
……
He can choose to do so for the greater good of the country, without necessarily DESIRING to fight. In fact, he could DREAD fighting, but still go and do so.
Agreed, Bethany, but he still wants to do it more than he wants to do something else. If he wanted something else more, he wouldn’t go to war. Obviously, many people do dread war (especially after being in it). Most do “go on,” though, from a sense of duty, to protect their comrades and countrymen, etc. They may not “like” it, compared to other things if there was no way, but since there is war at that time they are still doing what they want the most, among their available choices.
……
His desire is to protect his country. His actions are to fight in war. He does something he does not desire in order to bring about a greater good for others.
You’re still looking at it as if it’s in a vacuum. Sometimes there are no “good” options, just choicers which are “less bad” in his opinion than others. He’s doing what he has the least distaste for, among his available choices. He might “hate” four things, but he will pick the one that he “likes” the most, from them. “Like” obviously being mighty relative there.
One of my brothers was in both Iraq wars, a major in the Air Force. He did not “want” to go over there, per se. But compared to giving up his military career, doing his duty as he saw it, helping to insure a better life for his kids, gaining pay and money for retirement, etc., he wanted to do that more than what else he could choose.
Doug
I disagree. Yes it does. Regardless of “faith” or not, the individual has to want a thing enough, or want it more than his other available choices, to pick it. If it’s done, “because of my beliefs,” all fine and good, but the desire to do it is still there.
No, that is not true. The person only need want the END PRODUCT of what the actions can potentially achieve. They need not desire to perform the action that achieves that goal.
Nope – he wants to do that more than he wants the alternatives – not protecting his country, being a “draft-dodger,” etc. This isn’t saying he “wants war” in a vacuum. It’s saying that he’s making his choice upon what he wants the most, from what his options are.
What he wants- to protect his country.
What he doesn’t want- to fight, to kill.
He wants his country to be free more than he desires not to fight, therefore, he makes the decision to fight, even though he may not really want to do it, because he knows it is necessary in order to achieve the end goal, which is actually what he desires.
The desire is not towards the killing or fighting, the desire is in the protection of the country.
Agreed, Bethany, but he still wants to do it more than he wants to do something else. If he wanted something else more, he wouldn’t go to war. Obviously, many people do dread war (especially after being in it). Most do “go on,” though, from a sense of duty, to protect their comrades and countrymen, etc. They may not “like” it, compared to other things if there was no way, but since there is war at that time they are still doing what they want the most, among their available choices.
Yes, he desires …. but the desire is not to go to war…the desire is to protect his country, and his family.
I can imagine that he’d much rather be staying at home, spending time with his family. In fact, I’m sure of it.
But his principles will not allow him to go with what he desires first. He puts his family, and his country’s well being above his own desires until he can achieve the end goal.
He chooses to put away, or at least postpone his own desires until he can do what he knows is the right thing to do.
One of my brothers was in both Iraq wars, a major in the Air Force. He did not “want” to go over there, per se. But compared to giving up his military career, doing his duty as he saw it, helping to insure a better life for his kids, gaining pay and money for retirement, etc., he wanted to do that more than what else he could choose.
So are we just speaking different languages here, because it almost sounds like you’re agreeing with me.
He decided to put away his DESIRES so that he could do what he knew was right, in order to protect his family and country (the greater good). Just like I said.
You may disagree with me that there are goods and bads, but oh well. We disagree.
He decided to put away his DESIRES so that he could do what he knew was right, in order to protect his family and country (the greater good). Just like I said.
You may disagree with me that there are goods and bads, but oh well. We disagree.
Bethany, there certainly are goods and bads, but I maintain that the bottom line is as I say.
Example – a diaper needs to be changed. Now for most people, that is not their most favorite thing in the world. Yet they still do it because they more want it done, regardless for any distaste they have for it for its sake alone, than they want to leave it undone.
Same for going to war. They want to do it more than their other available choices. Sometimes they want other stuff more, and then they go AWOL, desert, go to Canada to avoid the draft, as in the Vietnam era, etc. The “DESIRES” are not “put away,” they are weighed and the one that is wanted the most is what is chosen.
Doug
Bethany, there certainly are goods and bads, but I maintain that the bottom line is as I say.
But you don’t agree with me that there are external goods or bads. I believe that murder is always wrong, whether someone believes it or not.
For instance, you think that murder is only really wrong as long as enough people feel it is wrong. Otherwise, murder could be perfectly acceptable within a certain society because said society says it’s okay. It’s all a matter of valuation to you.
In my opinion, murder is always wrong, no matter what society says, and I’ll fight and fight and fight, until we win and protect those who are victimized by the legal status of murder. You never will fight for human victims unless you personally “need” or “value” them. Otherwise, you’ll say, let society handle it.
We disagree.
Example – a diaper needs to be changed. Now for most people, that is not their most favorite thing in the world. Yet they still do it because they more want it done, regardless for any distaste they have for it for its sake alone, than they want to leave it undone.
Doug, you’re using an example that I would use.
This is precisely my point. If I change that diaper, it is NOT because I WANT to wipe away that stinky poopy with my hands. I can guarantee you that I do NOT like changing poopy diapers.
However, what I DO like, is the house smelling good, and my baby being free from butt rashes.
Therefore, I choose to do the thing I dislike intensely (changing the poopy diaper), so that I can achieve my goal (getting rid of the awful smell). I am not choosing what I want to do the least. I don’t want to do it at ALL. I just choose to do it because the ONLY way to achieve the goal I desire is to do the thing I do NOT desire to do.
Bethany: But you don’t agree with me that there are external goods or bads. I believe that murder is always wrong, whether someone believes it or not.
Lord have mercy…. B, I would say that murder is always wrong, by definition. It’s defined as an illegal act. I think you are substituting “killing a human being where I don’t like it.”
……
For instance, you think that murder is only really wrong as long as enough people feel it is wrong. Otherwise, murder could be perfectly acceptable within a certain society because said society says it’s okay. It’s all a matter of valuation to you.
No, no, no – once again, the law determines “murder.” You, I, anybody may have any and all opinion about a given killing or situation, anywhere in the whole “good/bad/right/wrong” spectrum, but our opinion isn’t what makes for murder or not.
……
In my opinion, murder is always wrong, no matter what society says, and I’ll fight and fight and fight, until we win and protect those who are victimized by the legal status of murder. You never will fight for human victims unless you personally “need” or “value” them. Otherwise, you’ll say, let society handle it. We disagree.
Yes, murder is always wrong, by definition, but in no way does that mean that a given killing is “murder.” There is more to it than that.
……
“Example – a diaper needs to be changed. Now for most people, that is not their most favorite thing in the world. Yet they still do it because they more want it done, regardless for any distaste they have for it for its sake alone, than they want to leave it undone.”
Doug, you’re using an example that I would use.
Heh heh – yes, I know. ; )
This is precisely my point. If I change that diaper, it is NOT because I WANT to wipe away that stinky poopy with my hands. I can guarantee you that I do NOT like changing poopy diapers.
However, what I DO like, is the house smelling good, and my baby being free from butt rashes. Therefore, I choose to do the thing I dislike intensely (changing the poopy diaper), so that I can achieve my goal (getting rid of the awful smell). I am not choosing what I want to do the least. I don’t want to do it at ALL. I just choose to do it because the ONLY way to achieve the goal I desire is to do the thing I do NOT desire to do.
Well of course – for an incredible number of things, they are done because the end result is wanted. Surely you don’t think that’s at argument? As stated, you want to change the diaper (for whatever reason – in this case the end results) more than you want to leave it unchanged. Bottom line, you’re doing what you want the most, from your available choices. If you truly wanted to do something else more than change the diaper, you’d do it.
Doug