Devaluing Life

Terry Schiavo's case brought to national attention the kinds of practices that happen quietly all the time.  Severely injured patients are treated as broken instruments that have no value because they don't function properly.  They are deemed life unworthy of life.  Wesley J. Smith recounts just a few cases where patients slated for Terry's fate were found in time to be functioning at a higher capacity than doctors had thought. 

The point isn't so much that doctors make mistakes.  The point is to look at these cases and be shocked at how the weakest and most vulnerable among us are devalued.  Their humanity isn't valued and instead there is a rising movement to treat them as mere objects.

In this climate, Jesse Ramirez-type stories can become more numerous, yet still barely penetrate the public consciousness. Increasingly, we hear about sustenance being withdrawn within days of a serious brain injury. And now that these helpless people are deemed dehydratable, there is a growing clamor in the professional journals to transform them into natural resources to be exploited like a corn crop--as sources of vital organs and subjects for experimentation. To show how far this line of thinking has already gone, bioethicists writing in the Journal of Medical Ethics recently advocated transplanting pig organs into people diagnosed with PVS to determine the safety and efficacy of xenotransplantation (the transplantation of animal organs into human patients).

A serious cultural consequence of the Terri Schiavo drama has been the devaluation of the weakest among us into a disposable and exploitable caste. But it is not too late to reverse the tide. Jesse Ramirez, Haleigh Poutre, and the groundbreaking research into the treatment of serious brain injury are powerful reminders that where there is life, there is hope. Those who understand that all persons, regardless of capacity, deserve to be treated as beloved members of the human family have good reason to shake off the Schiavo rout and return to the fray.

Comments

[alan aronson]

Come on guys, is this the best you can do?

"But on May 30, when the two took Jesse's vehicle to go shopping, Jesse brought it up again. He got so angry, Rebecca said, that he yelled and banged on the windshield of his Toyota SUV. Rebecca told police that she wanted to get out of the vehicle but that Jesse would not allow her to. She opened the door, thinking that she would jump from the moving SUV. Then, Jesse lost control of the vehicle, and they crashed. A witness told police that the SUV was "fishtailing" and that he ran for his life to get out of the way as it left the road."

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0614lifedecision0614.html

Once again I have to point out that honesty and conservatism don't seem to go together very well. There is absolutely no similarity between the cases mentioned in the article and Terri Schaivo's.

Then we have: "To put it simply: Haleigh Poutre is no Terri Schiavo. Schiavo had been in a persistent vegetative state for 15 years, and had undergone a barrage of tests showing that she had no higher brain functioning and no consciousness—a fact on which all unbiased medical experts agreed. (Her case had also undergone repeated court review.) Haleigh had been in a vegetative state since Sept. 11. After the Supreme Judicial Court ruled that she could be taken off life support, the girl began to show improvement."

http://www.reason.com/news/show/32059.html

The Boston Globe also has information on this case.

All the case of Kate Bainbridge shows is that we should probably do PET scans. Again no similarity to Schaivo's case.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5321460.stm

It didn't take me all that long to check out the facts here. We already know from such articles in the past that Westly J. smith cannot be trusted to present things honestly. Why would anyone link to this guy without checking things out first?

[Michael Speers]

Alan, you have a skewed view of life. Your "unbiased medical experts agreed" quote is an admission that other medical professionals disagreed on Schiavo's condition. But of course, any medical professionals who disagree with your outlook must be "biased." That amounts to a simple ad-hominem attack, disparage those with whom you disagree.

I say your view of life is skewed because where you have medical professionals on different sides of an issue, you give the benefit of the doubt to death (calling the other side biased), I give it to life.

[Scott]

I think that the underlying moral question is more worth considering.

Q. What is it that gives a human life more value than a bovine life?
A. Humans are made in God's likeness, i.e., humans have a soul associated with their body and cows don't.

If this is the case, then the solution is to figure out at what point the soul and the body dis-associate & call that death. I don't know if that is possible to do w/ electronic instruments of science - probably not. So it is up to philosophers / theologians to determine when that happens and point to physical signs that indicate that it has (or has not) happened. This might not provide any usable conclusions. But if it does, then we (who believe in God) can lay the matter to rest once and for all.

BTW - this same argument should be considered in the abortion debate, too (IMHO).

[Derek Cardwell]

I think my biggest problem with this is that STR regularly makes a distinction between life-devaluing practices like abortion and euthanasia and non-life-devaluing practices such as merely letting a terminal disease from which there will be no recovery take its course.

Bringing up the Schiavo case -- something that seems to fall into the latter category -- just seems inconsistent with what STR has actually written on this issue. She was vegetative, never going to recover, and the family opted to let her condition run its course.

Are there details I'm missing? If so, I want to know why this case is different from all the other vegetative cases in which people remove life support. If not, STR should seriously drop the Schiavo thing.

[Amy]

Derek, let me discuss this as a principle of bioethics, regardless of the Schiavo case. The difference is this: the need for food and water is not part of the disease, and everyone's ability to obtain food is always dependent on sources outside their own bodies. Unlike breathing, we all need to obtain food and water through means outside of our natural bodily functions, and many people need help getting it (babies, small children, some older people, etc.). In fact, most of us depend on the help of others to obtain food to a certain extent.

Imagine you're paralyzed and in a wheelchair. You live in a room where the food is kept too high for you to reach. Every day I come in, take the food down from the shelf, and give it to you. Then one day I decide my bringing you food is merely an extra measure keeping you alive, so I'll mercifully stop so you can die. Notice there is no cause of death existing before my decision. The death isn't the result of a disease taking its course. Instead, it is my ceasing to give you the food that will be the very cause of your death. This is very different from an instance in which a person has a serious illness and refuses medical attention to prolong her life. In that case, the death would be a natural result of the illness.

This is why I'm against removing food and water from human beings if they're unable to get it on their own. We bring food to all sorts of people who would die if we didn't do so. Just because we give it to some people through a tube, doesn't make the principle any different. The fact remains that if someone who can't reach the food dies of starvation it is the direct result of our not giving him food--we are the direct cause of his death, not the disease.

Not everyone agrees about this--not even Christians. But I think this is the correct way to look at it.

[alan aronson]

"Alan, you have a skewed view of life."

Thank you!

"But of course, any medical professionals who disagree with your outlook must be "biased.""

Hi Michael, one has to use the term "biased" because we had folks like Dr. William Frist making a diagnosis from the floor of the Senate using a video tape. Frist is a "medical professional" but clearly biased and making a medical judgment outside his specialty area using unconventional protocols, hence the need for the qualification.

Also, of course, once a case hits the courts, one can get just about any professional opinion one wishes if one has the resources.

I do have to note that you failed to give us an example of what you consider to be unbiased medical opinion that contradicts the referenced opinion, which opinion, BTW, was confirmed by the autopsy.

Do you have references to any such contradictory opinion or were you playing games with words and hoping we wouldn't notice?

"Just because we give it to some people through a tube, doesn't make the principle any different."

Yes it does. there is no logical difference between supplying oxygen through a ventilator and supplying hydration and highly processed nutrition through a SURGICALLY inserted feeding tube. The prognosis is everything. A ventilator or feeding tube is appropriate care in some cases and in others is excessive.

BTW, would everyone please note that no one has challenged my evaluation of the cases Smith chose. They had nothing to do with the situation we had in the Schaivo case. Had Smith written an intellectually honest article he wouldn't have had any examples.

[Amy]

>>there is no logical difference between supplying oxygen through a ventilator and supplying hydration and highly processed nutrition through a SURGICALLY inserted feeding tube.

Yes there is. In the first case, the respiratory system does not work, and needs help. In the second case, the digestive system works perfectly fine, she only needs food. Removing her food would be more analogous to removing the air from the room than it would be to removing a respirator. One involves a needed outside resource (air or food) that does not come from a bodily function, and the other involves fixing a non-functioning system (e.g., through a respirator). If you take away the food you're delivering to a person who needs it, this is analogous to saying to a woman bedridden in a room without windows, "Only the air that we're pumping into the room is keeping her alive. We ought to remove the air and stop these extra measures so she can die."

Taking away an outside resource (air or food) is different from propping up a non-functioning system (lungs or stomach).

The method of delivery seems irrelevant if the digestive system is functioning. There could very well be a person paralyzed who couldn't chew and swallow but who has a perfectly functioning digestive system and needs to have the food delivered that way rather than on a tray. The fact remains: if you keep the food away from her, YOU are the cause of death, not a disease, because anyone--not just paralyzed people--would die if you left them in a position where they were unable to get food.

[alan aronson]

Hi Amy, chewing abd swallowing is part of the digestive process. One doesn't drop morsels of meat and veggies down the tube, the "food" is highly processed, as are IV materials.

I chose to draw the line at anything that involves a medical procedure balanced against prognosis.

After 15 years, with the given degree of brain damage, it was clear that Terry was gone, a close viewing of the video as well as the autopsy confirmed that. Appropriate care in her case was basic hygiene until she "died" (in quotes as I consider someone in that condition to already be long gone).

Each case has to be judged on its merits. Again I note the lack of appropriate examples in the article.

[Denis]

The use of a feeding tube does not necessarily mean a patient is incapable of chewing and/or swallowing their own food. Feeding tubes, yes SURGICALLY inserted feeding tubes, are also used as a matter of convenience (either for the patient or their caregivers).

For this reason it is misleading, if not dangerous, to consider this feeding technique to be a form of artificial life support on-par with ventilator technology.

[Michael Speers]

Hi Alan,

In my initial response to your post, I made no claims to unbiased medical opinion therefore I bear no burden to provide one. I simply took your admission that there was opinion on the other side and pointed out that you automatically labeled it "biased" because it differed from your point of view.

And in one post you disqualify MEDICAL DR. Bill Frist's diagnosis as biased because he made his diagnosis by watching a video tape and then you cite the video tape in another post as well as an autopsy (definitionally after the fact) to determine that "Terry was gone."

Let me get this straight, Dr. Bill Frist is biased for making his diagnosis with the same evidence you had, yet you are not biased?

Questioning Frist's credentials? Please provide yours?

[Jay Watts]

Alan,

It seems silly to argue the value of life point with you as you appear to hold the opinion that Terri was under some obligation to improve in condition to have value. But you make the interesting statement that you consider Terri long since dead due to her lack of higher brain functions. If that is true, and it is obviously true that her family wanted to continue to provide nourishment and care for her, then on what grounds did her husband have the right to deny her that nourishment? You see, he argued that Terri never wanted to live in this condition, and then he and others like yourself argued that Terri was no longer really there. Then why do Terri’s wishes apply to this new life that now exists? Based on this position, Terri ceased to exist at the time of the impairment. We know that something living is here and so if we take this position seriously then we have a living something that is not Terri. So then, whatever Terri’s opinion was, it is irrelevant to this new life.

If Terri’s wishes apply, then you are conceding a continuity of being, that Terri is still alive and her former wishes still hold to this body. The problem is, you have now conceded that the substance of Terri is intrinsically the same and for those of us who hold to the substance view of value, that Terri is of value. If her life is of value, if it does not cause Terri any discomfort or pain to be alive, and her parents wish to prolong the care giving process until her condition actually causes her death, then why do you think it was the moral thing to do to deny her life? My understanding of her condition was that it was rare that people would live past 1 year with this level of impairment, and so it is unclear how much longer Terri would have survived as she already had long surpassed her expected life span. Why the insistence that it is “right” to end her life at this time though others (her parents) wish to facilitate maintaining it?

You accuse conservatives of dishonesty, but how are we to evaluate statements from her husband of how “Terri was at peace” during the hours that she was dehydrating to death. If she was not there, she was not at peace. Isn’t the argument that she is basically a piece of breathing furniture? She is dead already, isn’t she? How can one argue that she is a “vegetable” (an odious description of any human being) with no value and simultaneously be so caring and sensitive about how she is doing? Those views are inconsistent. If you think her body is an empty valueless vessel bound for death, then the sensitivity expressed appears as radically dishonest as anything that you have pointed out in others.

[doug t]

Terri Schiavo's only problem was that she wasn't a rapist/murderer on death row. Then Alan would be conjuring up every internet article and thinly connected quote from the founding fathers to save her life.

[Mo]

This whole episode with Terri Schiavo changed me forever.

Terri Schiavo died a slow and excruciating death by starvation. She was not unconscious. She was not dying. She was not even ill. (She was severely disabled, yes. But she did not have a disease.)

What was done to her was inexcusable. I cannot tell you how many calls I placed, how I begged other people to call, and how much I prayed. I don't know why God chose to not answer my prayers and the prayers of so many others. I don't know why He chose to let her parents go through the agony they must have gone through, watching their daughter being murdered before their eyes. It's something I won't under understand, until I am standing before God. All I know is that there was no justice for her in this life. But there will be someday.

What was more horrible was to hear the many, many people - even people I know - who agreed with starving another human being to death. I remember begging them to look at the information - the phhotos, the VIDEO. This was not some 'vegetable', a person in a coma! (Not that it would be acceptable to do this to anyone, regardless of their condition.)

But this was so obviously a human being who was awake, able to make some sounds, and have some recognition of her surroundings. And yet no one cared. No one looked. No one... did a thing.

It's really hard for me to talk about it. The coldness that I saw in people was put on display. It was chilling. Because all I could think was, wow, if that was me in that condition... my own friends would want me dead.

How horrible is that?

[zzx375]

Either Smith's premise is true or not.

[Mo]

It's amazing to me that we have to sit here and debate whether letting a human being starve to death is right or wrong. Do we need to be a medical expert of some kind to figure this out? Of course not.

Alan, I hope you never find yourself in a condition like Terri Schiavo or the others like her. But if you do, may you be given the mercy that you seem to be incapable of showing to others.

[alan aronson]

"If you think her body is an empty valueless vessel bound for death, then the sensitivity expressed appears as radically dishonest as anything that you have pointed out in others."

Hi Jay, we don't need to go too far into the soulish tall grass to resolve the Schaivo affair.

For one thing there is the matter of enlightened self interest. If, like most Americans, I would prefer to not be on a ventilator or have a feeding tube installed (maintained) if there is no possibility of a meaningful recovery (hi Mo :)), it seems to me the best way of insuring that outcome is to insure it for everyone.

A large part of the reason for the reaction of the American public to the Schiavo case is that the implications were obvious. People want their wishes honored, whatever their positions on the person and things of that nature. If all it takes is some religious and/or sentimental nut of a relative to overide ones stated wishes then that gets folks attention.

The matter was well litigated in the state courts which was the proper jurisdiction in our federal system.

I thought that marriage meant that one left father and mother and joined with another. Making medical decisions is part of what comes with that package.

BTW, this wasn't a matter of who was providing care. Terri was in a care facility and Medicaid was paying the bills. That would be the case regardless of who was legally empowered to make health care decisions.

"Questioning Frist's credentials? Please provide yours?"

Hi Michael, I don't believe that I claimed to have any medical credentials. That is a red herring. Do you believe it is proper for a licensed medical professional to make a diagosis based on viewing a highly edited video tape? I thought not. It is, however, quite another matter for lay folks to form opinions based on the information provided. We do that all the time. As the Reason article pointed out, unbiased MEDICAL opinion was unaminious, the opinions of others are another matter. And I never questioned Frist's credentials, I questioned his professional judgement. BTW, I was quoting the author of the Reason article. I do agree with the use of the term "unbiased".

"The use of a feeding tube does not necessarily mean a patient is incapable of chewing and/or swallowing their own food. Feeding tubes, yes SURGICALLY inserted feeding tubes, are also used as a matter of convenience (either for the patient or their caregivers)."

Yes Denis I understand that but in some cases (including Terri's) it is a necessity. In either case it is a matter of choice and a review of the matter by the courts determined that Terri had made hers.

"So it is up to philosophers / theologians to determine when that happens and point to physical signs that indicate that it has (or has not) happened."

This would take us back to the 12th century. BTW Scott, how do you feel about the Texas law (signed by gov. Bush), that allows hospitals to disconnect patients from life support against their will?

"and then you cite the video tape in another post as well as an autopsy (definitionally after the fact) to determine that "Terry was gone."

Michael, Mo, maybe one of you can help me here. We now know that those attributes that your side assigned to Terri were simply wrong. The MRI was right; she had massive brain damage in the areas of the brain associated with sight and conscious behavior. It is also clear that those who were actually in the room with her and attributed higher functioning to her were either delusional or lying to the rest of you. Why doesn't this bother you?

"Terri Schiavo's only problem was that she wasn't a rapist/murderer on death row. Then Alan would be conjuring up every internet article and thinly connected quote from the founding fathers to save her life."

Hi Doug, first you demonstrate gross misunderstandings on economic history below and now you read my mind. Everyone, please note the certainly and confidence with which Doug makes his assertions.

Now the reality. I have no problem with capital punishment punishment as long as constitutional requirements are followed. I wouldn't be able to quote the founders contra CP as I am unaware of any such references. I do recall that General Washington had folks hung even as he forbade torture; that is good enough for me.

Not only would I have no problem with executing "rapist/murderers" but I would also execute some simple murderers, some rapists, as well as traitors and some war criminals. Others, it seems, prefer to vote for the latter two.

[Michael Speers]

Alan, this shall be my last post on this issue. But "making a medical judgment outside his specialty" is questioning one's credentials. What else does "outside his specialty" mean? That's basically saying his opinion is no better than a mechanic's.

And this, "As the Reason article pointed out, unbiased MEDICAL opinion was unaminious, the opinions of others are another matter."

So the Reason article does the same thing as you, label contrary opinions as biased. Anything contrary is "another matter" (read obviously biased).

So you've cited Reason.com (self-proclaimed Libertarian organization -- see about page on Reason.org -- same organization), the Boston Globe (obviously liberal) and included a link to the BBC (obviously liberal) to arrive at the "facts" of the case.

Ultimately, bias is unimportant so long as you can see through your own. You cannot. I am admittedly biased for life. Trying to see through my own, I still see no good reason to starve a person to death.

[Aaron Snell]

>>People want their wishes honored, whatever their positions on the person and things of that nature. If all it takes is some religious and/or sentimental nut of a relative to overide (sic) ones stated wishes then that gets folks attention.

Alan,

Just out of curiosity, what are your views on euthanasia, in brief?

[Derek Cardwell]

Thank you for your explanation, Amy. Your position makes sense now.

And Mo, is that true? If she wasn't vegetative, then there is no possible justification for what was done. Withholding vital nutrition from the mentally handicapped -- what this would essential be if she was not vegetative -- is disgusting!

[Mo]

Derek, look at the videos at this link for yourself.

http://www.terrisfight.org/quicklinks.php?id=50

[Mo]

And I'd ask Alan to look at one of the videos as well. If you can't see the obvious - that this is a human being, and if you can't see that killing this human being is wrong, then there's nothing else I can do or say to convince you.

[alan aronson]

Hi Michael, my apologies. I wasn't clear; a doctor may practice outside of his specialty area and, in fact, may be qualified to do so and he is legally allowed to. I consider a doctor's decision as to the cases he takes on to be a matter of judgment. A cardiologist may be perfectly able to make gross neurological judgments however no doctor, even the world's top neurologist, would have gone as far as Frist went based on a highly edited tape. I do take your point though.

Hi Aaron, families make decisions that amount to euthanasia every day and that is their role as it is presumed that they will have the best interests of the person in mind and also will likely understand what the individual would have wanted.

A conscious, mentally competent person should be the one to decide on his treatment. If by euthanasia you mean a doctor or doctors makes a decision to actively kill a person then generally I would say no; ditto for a government agency.

I went to the videos Mo and, while I understand where you are coming from, all I see is random motion. Folks in Terri's condition make all sorts of involuntary, random motions. If one plays music long enough, within a certain range, one will get an involuntary movement which, in this case, is being touted as a voluntary reaction. These are a few seconds out of hours of tape. I would urge you to clear you mind of sentimental associations and take a long objective look at those videos. These are clearly random, involuntary motions, totally disconnected from any stimuli. This is also consistent with the autopsy.

Mo, we now have the autopsy and the condition of her brain is inconsistent with the actions attributed to her. Why do you insist on maintaining your initial reaction to the videos when the now available evidence is to the contrary?

BTW, "starving to death" isn't necessarily "brutal" in these cases. I recently had to deal with a family member in hospice and there came a time when voluntary eating and drinking stopped. The person just drifted off within a few days. According to the hospice folks this is typical, In fact the whole idea is to avoid futile medical interventions.

[Aaron Snell]

Thanks, Alan, but that didn't really answer my question. I'm not talking about treatment for a disease. I'm talking about doctor-assisted suicide. I'm a little confused by your response here:

>>A conscious, mentally competent person should be the one to decide on his treatment. If by euthanasia you mean a doctor or doctors makes a decision to actively kill a person then generally I would say no; ditto for a government agency.

If you mean a doctor alone making the decision to terminate someone, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about a mentally competent person who decides to end their life with the help of a medical professional. Also, I view "treatment" as that which works to cure or manage a disease or condition. As such, death hardly counts. Are you using the word differently?

I promise, I'm not walking off into the tall grass; there's a point I think I'd like to make about the consistency of you position, but I need a little more info. Thanks.

[alan aronson]

Hi Aaron, Ill try again. First, you mention "manage". How about pain management for a terminal condition that requires ever increasing doses. Is it euthanasia or treatment to keep upping the dose?

If you want to focus on assisted suicide, I favor the practice as long as the decision is the person's and they are mentally competent. Should a depresed person be able to walk into a doctor's office and get help in ending it all - no. Should a person with a terminal condition or advancing dementia get some help if he wants it - yes.

Within those parameters it should be possible to work out the necessary law and policy. Hope this helps.

[Aaron Snell]

Thanks, Alan.

>>Should a depresed person be able to walk into a doctor's office and get help in ending it all - no.

Why not?

[Jay Watts]

Alan,

I have been a bit busy, so if you have moved on, such is life. First of all, my primary concern is what is right or moral in an objective sense. In that context, what is legal or popular bears little weight unless you think it is impossible for something to be legal, popular, and objectively immoral. Number two, I have recently had to go through a case where the subject of DNR was addressed in regards to a direct relation. The standards I was given by the medical professionals had to do with system failure and possibility of survival. In the most basic concept: liver, kidneys, heart, lungs. If any of these cease to function then the probability of imminent death is 25%. If all are gone, then survival probability is zero. I was under the impression that all of these systems were functioning, but Terri was so impaired that she could not take care of her basic needs. This does not strike me as a case of extreme medical intervention to prolong the life of a body that has ceased to function. That it is a physical reality that the majority of people fear facing does not immediately give us the moral authority to end that condition through withholding sustenance does it? In the end of my father’s life, you could have inserted all of the feeding tubes you wanted his body was dying and would not absorb or process anything. That was not the case here.

The question of the morality of withholding food is all that matters. It appears to me that you can not justify doing immoral things to living people just because they expressed at an earlier point it was there desire for you to do so. This seems to lead us back to our point of contention. What makes life of value. If you hold to a utilitarian view that the function of the body introduces value, then malfunctioning bodies are soulless and valueless based on those definitions, not by any charge leveled by me. You said Terri was long since dead. That means by your definition what was left was soulless and valueless, unless I am misunderstanding you.

The question of care giving was aimed at my understanding that Terri’s views were not clearly stated in a manner that one could determine with clarity what she wanted. How does this then give the husband authority to terminate the feeding of his wife when others disagree and are willing to intercede. I support marital consent rights, but this cedes a bit much to the spouse in my opinion. Of course you and I disagree on the most basic question. “What was Terri Schiavo?”

Thank you for the interaction. Though you and I profoundly diagree on many issues based on your comments, I appreciate your engaging. I am done. God bless.

[Mo]

Alan
It truly is remarkable that you can still say such a thing, even after viewing the video(s).

And how convenient to say that an autopsy doesn’t match up with a video. Easy to say that now, after she’s dead.

As for this:
'BTW, "starving to death" isn't necessarily "brutal" in these cases.'

Number one, how could you possibly know? One person cannot feel what anotehr person physically feels.
And two, Terri was not dying. She was not ill. This was not and already dying person 'drifting off' after a few days. I believe it was about 14 days before she finally died. Have you ever spent even a day without eating or drinking anything? Imagine 14 days. Imagine the agony of that.

May God have mercy on your soul. And may people have mercy on you as well, should you someday find yourself in such a helpless state.

[alan aronson]

"And how convenient to say that an autopsy doesn’t match up with a video. Easy to say that now, after she’s dead."

Hi Mo, please think again about your above statement.

The first time I saw the video was the first time I had heard about the case. My initial reaction was like yours. I thought, "golly, I wouldn't want to be keep alive in that condition but I don't know here."

As I found out more about the case, alarms started going off. I was able to watch the coverage extensively and, of course, it was a big blog item. I also saw the videos countless times and the more I viewed them the less it appeared that we were dealing with conscious, voluntary behavior.

Anyway, the more I found out, the clearer it became that those on the "save Teri" side were either misinformed (most), delusional (a few), or lying (those who were close to the situation and saw political advantage).

"Number one, how could you possibly know?"

Observation and research and I have talked with hospice folks about this. Also, once again, you are ascribing reactions to Terri she couldn't have had, given the extent of her CNS deterioration.

Mo, you are ascribing atributes to her that, BECAUSE WE HAVE AN AUTOPSY, we now know to be impossible. She wasn't tracking with her eyes - she was blind. She wasn't consciously reacting to things - she didn't have sufficient cerebral cortex to do that.

Why do you insist on holding on to your initial reactions when they were clearly wrong? Well meaning and good hearted, but wrong.

Mercy in this case, and certainly in mine, would be to remove the tube.

"Imagine the agony of that." Mo, she didn't have anywhere near that level of consciousness. Please consider that when you watch the videos you are identifying with her parents and not objectively viewing the videos. They are edited to make you do that.

[alan aronson]

"The question of care giving was aimed at my understanding that Terri’s views were not clearly stated in a manner that one could determine with clarity what she wanted."

Hi Jay, this had extensive court review. It would be great if everyone filled out a power of attorney but folks in Terri'a age range tend not to do that. As the two examples in the article clearly show, the courts are able to act when there is evidence that something is fishy.

"The question of the morality of withholding food is all that matters."

We simply disagree here. "Food" is, in this context, is an emotionally laden term designed to produce a certain reaction. In my opinion, if supplying nutrition requires a medical procedure, then it is appropriate to look at the prognosis.

I hope that everyone has filled out their powers of attorney forms as that is a clear lesson here.

Also, as just about everyone in Terri's condition or other situations requiring long term care wind up on Medicaid or Medicare as they will have exceeded the limits on their medical coverage, I would hope that you take a look at how we pay for all this and consider the advantages of universal coverage.

Hi Aaron, because we should treat treatable conditions. A person's right to terminate his life is absolute; the society, as a whole, has a right to decide on the conditions that must exist before we will provide him with help. There is abundant evidence that, once through the depression, folks who wished to commit suicide, were glad they didn't. that seems a good way to do medicine.