Youth in Asia

[Laura K (NC)]

I learned this when my MIL went into a coma -- lessee, 5 years ago, now? -- a coma that we were told she would never recover from. The doctors told her husband that there was no hope and he should pull the plug. The organ donor representatives hovered like vultures in the waiting rooms of the ICU, harassing our family every day. That was after <1 week of coma. Before the end of the second week, she was tracking things in the room with her eyes. Before the second month, she was aware of pain, recognized friends, caregivers, and family. Before the first year was out she was feeding herself, laughing at jokes, watching the Braves on TV, and doing physical therapy.

 

She had had meningitis and sepsis. Her organs were failing, her brain was not waving. Was she dead, only a potential person, but not an actual person? And then when she recovered, who was it that recovered, built back up piece by piece over the next years? What is life, anyway?

 

The biggest hurdles to her recovery were the medical teams that worked with her. They continually overmedicated her, misdiagnosed her, and gave up hope on her. Her husband refused to listen when they said she would never recover and that her brain was irreversibly and irreparably damaged. It is because of his efforts that she is doing as well as she is... not quite her old self, but a joy, and enjoying life.

 

What her family learned, after only a few months of research, is that the brain is amazing and limits can't be placed upon it. The hubris of doctors (and legislators) who theoretically decide first to "do no harm" yet pull the plug for convenience' sake, value the human person no more than they do a dog's life.

 

A co-worker of my husband died last weekend, and my husband went to his funeral on Monday. He works in a small company of only 11 or so, so this man's death was felt strongly. He was in a coma for a week before they gave up and disconnected him. I always think of my MIL whenever I hear stories like this, and think about every success story like hers. They won't all be success stories, but you don't know, do you, what a person in a coma will experience if he recovers. We can't predict or measure "quality of life" for another person. I would not be able to live with myself if I caved in to a doctor's suggestion to "pull the plugs," and would always wonder how much of a recovery would have been possible if the person were allowed to die on his own.

[summer]

My issue in the Terri Schiavo case was that the man acting as her DH and making all the decisions was not acting as her DH. He was living with another woman and making babies with the other woman. He clearly wanted to hurt her family when he got the court order to keep them away and would not even allow her to be buried in their family cemetary, even though he was living as if married with another woman. There was also a history of abuse in that marriage too. But once Mr Schiavo decided to live with another woman and make babies with her and go on with his life, he should have handed these decisions and such back over to her parents.

[Laura K (NC)]

Though some subject matter has been traditionally off limits on The Well-Trained Mind boards (like husband-bashing) ever since the very first years.

 

Do you think husband-bashing is a controversial topic that should be revisited? ;)

 

Just kidding. Me neither. I always hated those "Have you stopped beating your husband yet" threads. :D

 

The issue isn't the topics of abortion or euthanasia (let me predict what might come next from Phred's keyboard: the designated hitter, paper or plastic, free will or predestination, natural aging or cosmetic enhancements, Hellman's or Miracle Whip :boxing_smiley: ). The issue is agenda and predictability... and for me, recent blatant disrespect for our hostess.

 

Some of the women in this hive have been loyal to SWB for 8+ years. Welcome to the hive, and all that, but maybe consider suspending judgment on internecine "bee"-havior until at least your second week here.

[GraceinMD]

the forum rules say we can talk about anything in here... it's for "just chatting".

 

So, Phred, do you actually want to discuss euthanasia? Because I'm still interested and there may be a few others who are, too (she says hopefully).

 

If you aren't all that interested, could you post to that effect so I can choose whether to stay subscribed to the thread? (I single you out, simply because I think your views may challenge mine, not because others shouldn't post. All hive denizens, here's the question (rephrased by moi): "When is it right to die?" (alternatively: "When is it a right to die?"))

 

Thanks.

[Soph the vet]

All right, let's go the other way.

 

Euthanasia. We can all imagine circumstances in which it would be appropriate for someone, or ourselves, to prefer to end our lives.

 

All of us? Please don't speak for me here. I am trusting God to end my life when He sees fit. He has my days numbered.

 

I've created a living will in which I specify exactly what should happen should I fall into a vegetative state with no hope of recovery.

That's great that your family will know exactly what your wishes are in your case.

 

 

 

Terri Shiavo is the poster child for this... but, instead of allowing her the dignity of ending her life, our society starved her to death. If she could have felt pain that would have been horrible.

 

How was she allowed anything, really? Does maintaining control over when your life ends that gives it dignity?

Our society did not starve her to death, the courts did. And her good for nothing "husband" who was not a husband at all....through better or worse...till death due us part....he was living with another woman and had children with her as someone else already pointed out.

 

 

There are people who are clearly gone from this earth in all but flesh. Is it worth the cost in resources to keep their bodies alive?

 

Thoughts?

You mean there IS more to us than flesh, Phred? Since when are people less valuable than "resources"?

 

Obviously, I am against active euthanasia of humans. I am all for good palliative and hospice care to provide as much pain relief as possible. I am also for respecting a person's living will requests like "if I am found to be in a state of brain death please remove all life support". But to give someone an overdose of pentobarbitol just because they can no longer communicate verbally or get around on their own or feed themselves is wrong.

[Phred]

So, Phred, do you actually want to discuss euthanasia? Because I'm still interested and there may be a few others who are, too (she says hopefully).

 

If you aren't all that interested, could you post to that effect so I can choose whether to stay subscribed to the thread? (I single you out, simply because I think your views may challenge mine, not because others shouldn't post. All hive denizens, here's the question (rephrased by moi): "When is it right to die?" (alternatively: "When is it a right to die?"))

 

Thanks.

My mom is in a nursing home. Sadly, she no longer has use of her legs...there are many like her, all there mentally but physically not so much. They're great to visit with and I'm proud of my kids when we go. There's one man who calls my daughter "little lady"... he's in a wheelchair with limited movement but seems to be glad to see us whenever we visit. For them, the nursing home makes sense. They actually are still aware of their environment, can still take joy in things like their grandkids or my kids or... in the case of my mom, she lives and dies with her beloved Cubs.

 

But there are those who are in the late stages of dementia... or are simply gone. The nurses take these people out of their rooms in the mornings, prom them up in their wheelchairs and line them up by the nurse's station where they sit and moan or sleep. They don't speak. They don't interact. They're husks. Their lives consist of moaning or screaming at night, being propped up in a chair during the day, having their diapers changed and being laid out in bed again to do it all over. There is no awareness of their surroundings or if there is it's calling people by names of others long since gone or imagined. The only problem is their bodies aren't ready to die... but their brains have. Nobody visits them anymore... at least I haven't seen visitors on the holidays and other days when we're there for my mom.

 

So what are these "twilight people"? I know it sounds crass and heartless but... why are they still alive? If you believe in an afterlife, wouldn't it be better to let them get on with it? If you don't... isn't it clear that this life is over once your brain ceases to function?

 

What do you think Grace, from your perspective?

[Parabola]

But there are those who are in the late stages of dementia... or are simply gone. The nurses take these people out of their rooms in the mornings, prom them up in their wheelchairs and line them up by the nurse's station where they sit and moan or sleep. They don't speak. They don't interact. They're husks. Their lives consist of moaning or screaming at night, being propped up in a chair during the day, having their diapers changed and being laid out in bed again to do it all over. There is no awareness of their surroundings or if there is it's calling people by names of others long since gone or imagined. The only problem is their bodies aren't ready to die... but their brains have. Nobody visits them anymore... at least I haven't seen visitors on the holidays and other days when we're there for my mom.

 

?

This is exactly right. I worked in a nursing home when I was young, before I had other skills. This is a very accurate description.

 

And as for the love Phred/hate Phred part of this discussion: Leave the cat alone. So he doesn't want to talk about math curriculum or his new toaster oven that fulfills his wildest dreams. Its ok. If you don't want to read Phred.....then don't. My first suggestion would be, don't go to the threads that Phred himself starts, you're almost sure to find him there.

[GraceinMD]

Phred, I am sorry about your mom - it's hard to have a loved one in a nursing home, but your visits there are incredibly helpful (not just to her - I'm assuming that they are to her!), but to the staff working at the NH. Your faithfulness in visiting speaks volumes to them - and validates their worth, on some level, imo.

 

Having said that, I'm "doing what I do," so will post later my thoughts about the "husks" and "twilight people". It's not an easy question. On some levels it's easier than on others (philosophically is, in some ways, easier than practically, I think).

 

More later. Thanks for responding.

[TXMomof4]

This whole discussion leads me to a topic that I am very passionate about. My grandparents and dh's grandparents are both very elderly. All of them have experienced massive heart attacks and strokes. They are still up and around some, but their lives are not what they envisioned when they thought of their "golden years". Please don't judge harshly on this, but sometimes I wonder if our technology has outpaced our desires. 3 of the 4 grandparents would be dead if not for massive intervention by the medical establishment. I think we save people because we can, not always because we ought to. My mom and I have discussed this ad nauseum. If I'm 80 yo and have a massive heart attack, do I want to live for the next 20 years? Or thank God for what I have had and let go?

 

I know that that's a little off-topic, but I don't feel we have the right to decide to take life. But allowing a life to end naturally is a different story.

[Phred]

This whole discussion leads me to a topic that I am very passionate about. My grandparents and dh's grandparents are both very elderly. All of them have experienced massive heart attacks and strokes. They are still up and around some, but their lives are not what they envisioned when they thought of their "golden years". Please don't judge harshly on this, but sometimes I wonder if our technology has outpaced our desires. 3 of the 4 grandparents would be dead if not for massive intervention by the medical establishment. I think we save people because we can, not always because we ought to. My mom and I have discussed this ad nauseum. If I'm 80 yo and have a massive heart attack, do I want to live for the next 20 years? Or thank God for what I have had and let go?

 

I know that that's a little off-topic, but I don't feel we have the right to decide to take life. But allowing a life to end naturally is a different story.

A different story but very much part of the discussion. My mom in where she is because her liver stopped being able to process aspirin. It built up and built up in her system until one day my father came home and found her slumped over the kitchen table. (there had been all sorts of other symptoms over the years, falls and things) But Dad wonders to this day if he had run one more errand if Mom might not have been spared years of suffering.

[Sara R]

If I'm 80 yo and have a massive heart attack, do I want to live for the next 20 years? Or thank God for what I have had and let go?

 

This is my issue with this discussion too, especially in terms of Medicare. Dh's 85-year-old grandmother had a quintuple bypass last year. She still serves a lot of people, and I'm very glad she's around--but I can't help but thinking that as a public policy, that Medicare paying for quintuple bypasses for 85-year-olds isn't sustainable. If they or their family can come up with the money themselves, that's different. Especially when our country is as deeply in debt as it is--there's no way Medicaid will be able to pay for such extravagant care for us. It's going to be tough weaning people off of entitlement expectations--

[Jumping In Puddles]

But once Mr Schiavo decided to live with another woman and make babies with her and go on with his life, he should have handed these decisions and such back over to her parents.

 

I totally agree with this. Because her parents have such strong feelings on the matter and he clearly wanted to get on with his life, he should have handed the decisions back to her parents. He didn't have to think it was right or humane for her to be kept alive but he should have had an ounce of respect for Terry's family.

 

But......

It makes me sick that the government stepped in to the case. And really, Do you want the government telling you when you can make the decision to pull the plug? Really? Sounds kind of fascist to me. An Executive Order to save a woman who is brain dead? How about an Executive Order to save Nataline Sarkisyan, the 17-year old leukemia patient who needed a liver transplant, and died waiting for her insurance company to make a decision?

 

Ok, I don't think the government should be stepping in... but you do get my point right? They chose THIS CASE to step in on because it had political implications - not because the government cares about what happens to one woman.

 

That being said, I am for euthanasia. I agree with what phred said above. A life in pain with no recovery, severe dementia, brain dead etc. - it would be the humane thing to do.

 

My stand on this issue:

If someone is against it for religious or moral reasons then they should be able to opt out. Those that are for it should be able to legally opt in. Those that can't make the decision for themselves and have no advance directive should err on the side of caution and let nature take its course - no matter how cruel. Make sense?

[Phred]

This is my issue with this discussion too, especially in terms of Medicare. Dh's 85-year-old grandmother had a quintuple bypass last year. She still serves a lot of people, and I'm very glad she's around--but I can't help but thinking that as a public policy, that Medicare paying for quintuple bypasses for 85-year-olds isn't sustainable. If they or their family can come up with the money themselves, that's different. Especially when our country is as deeply in debt as it is--there's no way Medicaid will be able to pay for such extravagant care for us. It's going to be tough weaning people off of entitlement expectations--

I'm not saying I disagree, but how are you going to avoid the charge that this is racist? You're going to see very few minorities who are able to fund their own operations.

[Phred]

I totally agree with this. Because her parents have such strong feelings on the matter and he clearly wanted to get on with his life, he should have handed the decisions back to her parents. He didn't have to think it was right or humane for her to be kept alive but he should have had an ounce of respect for Terry's family.

If it were me... the heck with Terri's family. I'd feel that I had made a promise to my wife and I'd see it through.

 

But......

It makes me sick that the government stepped in to the case. And really, Do you want the government telling you when you can make the decision to pull the plug? Really? Sounds kind of fascist to me. An Executive Order to save a woman who is brain dead? How about an Executive Order to save Nataline Sarkisyan, the 17-year old leukemia patient who needed a liver transplant, and died waiting for her insurance company to make a decision?

Grandstanding and pandering. You can bet the same people that organized and got out the vote for both Jeb and George pushed VERY hard to see some action in the Terri Schiavo case.

 

Ok, I don't think the government should be stepping in... but you do get my point right? They chose THIS CASE to step in on because it had political implications - not because the government cares about what happens to one woman.

right.

 

That being said, I am for euthanasia. I agree with what phred said above. A life in pain with no recovery, severe dementia, brain dead etc. - it would be the humane thing to do.

I just wish I could state it better. I'm amazed at that word... "humane" Yet, we can't be "humane" to humans. Just our pets.

 

My stand on this issue:

If someone is against it for religious or moral reasons then they should be able to opt out. Those that are for it should be able to legally opt in. Those that can't make the decision for themselves and have no advance directive should err on the side of caution and let nature take its course - no matter how cruel. Make sense?

Not sure how that would work... how about if you wish to be kept alive no matter what, if you want your body kept alive until God decides to take you whenever that is... then churches should start nursing homes and they should pay for the care of those that choose this?

[Georgie]

Not sure how that would work... how about if you wish to be kept alive no matter what, if you want your body kept alive until God decides to take you whenever that is... then churches should start nursing homes and they should pay for the care of those that choose this?

 

 

I do not mean any disrespect, but if machines are keeping you alive how is that God deciding when it is your time? My Grandfather died of alzheimers. He went from a loving vibrant man, to a scared shell. It took long painful years for his body to finally give out. His mind was gone long before then. Many in my family have it written out exactly what we want done should something happen to us where our mind is not there, but our body still functions. It may not help, but at least our wishes our written down in our own words.

[Hannah]

But there are those who are in the late stages of dementia... or are simply gone. ........ There is no awareness of their surroundings or if there is it's calling people by names of others long since gone or imagined. The only problem is their bodies aren't ready to die... but their brains have. Nobody visits them anymore... at least I haven't seen visitors on the holidays and other days when we're there for my mom.

 

This describes my grandmother. She is in - I typed lives, but really, she's just there in a nursing home about 1000 miles away from where I live. We visited my parents a while ago and I drove to the home, but I just could not bring myself to go in. She does not recognize anyone any more, and would not remember that I had been there. It's totally distressing and I do not want to see or remember her that way. I want to remember her laughing and enjoying seeing us. I feel guilty for skipping the visit, but I just could not go through with it.

 

My other gran is 92. After leading an active life, she has become more and more frail over the years and has been in a home for the last 10. She has always been a very engaging conversationalist, well-read and on top of events. Her memory is now starting to fail her and she loses what she was talking about, or changes topics mid sentence. She's aware of this and says that it makes her embarrassed and she is starting to feel worthless now that both her body and now her mind are forsaking her. Every night she prays that she will not wake up and recently she has gone through a very bad spell, not wanting to take medication any longer. If she did not believe that it was a sin, she’d choose to end her life. The family was up in arms at this, but honestly, I don't blame her. She looks around her and sees the type of people you describe and does not want to go there.

 

Neither of them is being "kept alive" per se, but if they were to stop taking medication for various ailments, their lives would probably end sooner. And maybe that would be a relief.

[Doran]

Before I get to the specifics of this topic, I want to be among those who publicly state that I don't believe Phred's intentions here are as twisted as many would like to believe. Yes, the topics he brings to the table are [always?] inherently controversial. To my mind, that is precisely what makes them relevant to a place like this. Where else can you easily find a group of so many thinking people, available for extended discussion on topics ranging from abortion to Guantanamo? People from vastly different backgrounds, from all over the globe, who are accessible for continued dialogue, for FREE! ;) (I do realize that our hosts incur costs) I am not troubled by the fact that one among us has little interest in contributing to threads about natural cleansers or burnt toast and prefers, instead, meatier matters. Frankly, I'm relieved. Because such topics challenge me in ways that toast does not. I can't do all of one, or all of the other. Household chat is easy for me. I'm not so good at confrontation or debate, but I'd like to improve those skills, so I tend to lurk on the weighty threads, gleaning what I can, paying attention to tone and style, discerning the difference between opinion and fact, between what is inflammatory and what is intriguing. Phred's threads (say that five times fast :D) interest him. Clearly, they also interest many of us. Maintaining temperance while dialoging about sensitive subject matter appears to be the greatest challenge, and mistakes abound. From a lurker's perspective, it appears the mistakes are not entirely Phred's, but that he is saddled with the blame and labeled instigator for authoring the thing in the first place. I have, admittedly, not read each thread word for word, but neither have I witnessed blatant disrespect. What I see is a rather predictable series of events playing themselves out. Phred stirs pots. "We" now expect Phred to be controversial, so we stitch a virtual scarlet C" on his avatar. He wears the label well, stirring all the while. "We" respond to him, he to us in kind. And here we are. Devolving. I don't enjoy this part. But, with the topics themselves, or the fact that they are Phred's only or his primary contribution to the board, I don't take issue.

 

 

Now, to the present topic, I have mostly questions to add. These are the thoughts I toy with and questions to which there are few or no answers.

 

Should (or when should) man's intervention into sustaining life end?

 

Does man's intervention into sustaining life prevent death from occurring naturally?

 

If you believe in divine intervention, could man's intervention in this arena not preclude intervention from the divine? I'm sure the short answer is "No, nothing precludes the divine." But, to me, this seems to be a shifting target, particularly when you look at death or our approach to death across centuries.

 

My experience suggests that we manipulate death by prolonging life. My father would not be alive today but for the medications he receives multiple times a day. He is an old man suffering from incontinence, Alzheimers/dementia, and chronic bronchitis, just to name the three biggies. He still lives at home, which brings another set of concerns for my eighty year old mother who is his primary caregiver. My father is miserable, and when I was with him recently, he spoke to me of wishing it could just be over. He is almost eighty-four, so it seems acceptable for me (and him) to believe that his time has come. Death has knocked. It left a calling card when he developed COPD more than ten years ago. It promised to come again fairly soon, but when it did, Medication was already taking up the guest room. (Incidentally, Medication is a trust funder, his travel costs are covered, thanks to Medicare.) Death had nowhere to stay. So, it left, with the promise of regular get togethers. It came again the last time my father had pneumonia, but doctors and the hospital staff turned it away. It would seem the right of the patient to be the one to call the shots here, to say, "Enough! Let death in." But, that's what we call suicide and suicide is morally wrong. It's weak. It's tragic.

 

And, what of the patient whose mind is taken first, who cannot remember to take only one pill three times a day, and might swallow seven or twenty but for an able minded helper to dispense the pills? What of the one who cannot get food to mouth without assistance, or the one who eats via tube? What of the child with cancer? The forty year old with ALS? The comatose? (Those questions are mostly rhetorical, I simply include them here as a vantage point into my head.) Most of these individuals would pass from this life were it not for our intervention. Are we "keeping them" from something else? Are we defining life for them or ascribing life to them? Whose agenda is at the heart of our decisions?

 

The only step I can see towards a solution is to advocate for every adult to have a living will. It would be a requirement for living. Kind of like a driver's license. For life...and death. I know, out on a ledge, aren't I? :001_huh:

[Sara R]

This isn't racist. There are plenty of poor people of all races. :)

 

I don't have a problem with this, especially in the case of dh's grandparents. They have the money to pay for operations like that specifically because they are much more frugal than most, and have been for their entire lives. He was in WWII, used the GI bill to get an engineering degree, and worked in his job until he was about 70. Because they didn't waste money on things like cold cereal (instead they eat cracked wheat), they have the money to spend on things that really matter, like life-prolonging health procedures. I think that if the financial cost was borne by people close to the matter there would be much wiser decisions made.

 

I'm not saying that everyone could be "rich" like them if they were frugal. Clearly not. We all have been given different gifts, some more and some less than others. We need to help each other. But if the "help" is given by government mandate--and to people who don't really need it, like dh's grandparents--there's a lot of waste involved.

 

Our country just doesn't have enough resources to provide top-notch medical care for everyone. We're already nearly bankrupt.

 

PS--this isn't entirely rhetorical for me. My cancer treatment was mostly covered by insurance, but my family helped out too--they must have thought it was worthwhile to keep me around--

[Phred]

This isn't racist.

I didn't say it was and I tend to agree with you. Please excuse me, your post was well written, for the sake of brevity I snipped it. What I said was, you'll be charged with being racist. As almost all those who can afford to extend their lives will be white. A policy that says, "we're ending medicare for all and you're on your own with what you have" will no doubt be perceived by many as racist, eugenics... genocide of a sort. Those charges, whether true or not, will be enough to scare politicians away.

[Serendipity]

Here's my dilemma...Of course I want to continue to live my life as I am today and if I were in a coma, or a vegetative state, or bedridden and not the same mentally, as I am *today*, I would not like to be left in that condition.

 

BUT what if I'm not in constant pain, and what if it is enough for me to live with simple pleasures such as a family member's visit or a gentle touch?

 

I know I am putting this badly.

 

I mean, how can I say today that I wouldn't find myself content to be that other me?

 

If I don't remember a lot about being the person I am today, then maybe I would be happy in that other condition. Ugh. I'm terrible at this...I don't mean 'happy' la-de-da...I mean happy to see my mother's smile, or the pattern of sunlight on the wall. Does anyone else KWIM?

 

I don't want to be starved or dehydrated to death, regardless.

 

Does that make sense?

[bkpan]

If it were me... the heck with Terri's family. I'd feel that I had made a promise to my wife and I'd see it through.

 

 

Grandstanding and pandering. You can bet the same people that organized and got out the vote for both Jeb and George pushed VERY hard to see some action in the Terri Schiavo case.

 

 

right.

 

 

I just wish I could state it better. I'm amazed at that word... "humane" Yet, we can't be "humane" to humans. Just our pets.

 

Not sure how that would work... how about if you wish to be kept alive no matter what, if you want your body kept alive until God decides to take you whenever that is... then churches should start nursing homes and they should pay for the care of those that choose this?

 

Promise???? What promise?? You mean like marital vows, or perhaps those promises aren't as important. When that man chose to make another family with a new "wife" he showed his commitment to "promises."

 

I'm hearing alot of "concern" for those in the last stages of dementia, coma, unresponsiveness, etc... Perhaps this concern is coming from fear, guilt, impatience, sadness, not sure what... but the reality is that we can't know what is left of the spirit in another human, we can't know how we would feel in their shoes, and we can't presume to have it figured out for another human being.

 

That is why euthanasia is such a scary idea for me. Just reading over the comments here from people who seem so sure about how they would feel to be 82 and suffering? I can't tell you how my assumptions about how I would feel at certain stages in my life have again and again been proved totally false. When I was 20yo, did I really KNOW what 40yo was like. Nope. And I can't know really how I will feel at 80yo. Maybe I'll wish I were dead. Maybe I'll savor every moment and pray for another day. We all know many stories of those in really "terrible" circumstances that are still grateful for life.

 

And then to focus on the cost involved is only a luxury for the middle class and wealthy. Aren't we really concerned with others taking away OUR share of the pie? It is coming from a position of power and entitlement to think that only those that can afford proper care are worthy of it. I wonder if the poster who had family help and insurance for her illness would still feel that only those who could afford it should get the care they need if she wasn't as blessed. I doubt it.

 

And then there are those that don't want to "see" the suffering. How can one be so positive that there is no spirit left in a loved one that is aware of their presence/visits? How can we know that our visits don't bring some level of comfort, joy, etc? We can't. Who are we really protecting??

 

Life is hard. Sometimes our motives are suspect. I am often so surprised and saddened by the depth of my own selfishness. Let's not just pretend that euthanasia is a "humane" choice. Sometimes (or maybe always), there is nothing humane about it.

 

Kim

[Michelle T]

This whole discussion leads me to a topic that I am very passionate about. My grandparents and dh's grandparents are both very elderly. All of them have experienced massive heart attacks and strokes. They are still up and around some, but their lives are not what they envisioned when they thought of their "golden years". Please don't judge harshly on this, but sometimes I wonder if our technology has outpaced our desires. 3 of the 4 grandparents would be dead if not for massive intervention by the medical establishment. I think we save people because we can, not always because we ought to. My mom and I have discussed this ad nauseum. If I'm 80 yo and have a massive heart attack, do I want to live for the next 20 years? Or thank God for what I have had and let go?

 

I know that that's a little off-topic, but I don't feel we have the right to decide to take life. But allowing a life to end naturally is a different story.

 

 

I used to work as a respiratory therapy way back when. I routinely saw patients kept alive through tremendous medical intervention, even though they had no real quality of life now. People who were in horrible pain, babies born with most of their brain out of their head, people who no longer had any consciousness, people who were only going to live a bit longer anyway, but now through medical technology, they could live a week or two longer in horrible pain.

 

Our technology is way ahead of us. We definitely save people because we CAN, not because we SHOULD. And in the end, every single one of us will die anyway.

 

I'm most puzzled by those who call ending such treatment "playing God". I would say that putting those at death's door onto extremely complex, painful, invasive life support is what's playing God, and yet no one seems to be bothered by that.

Michelle T

[Peek a Boo]

BUT what if I'm not in constant pain, and what if it is enough for me to live with simple pleasures such as a family member's visit or a gentle touch?

 

 

I mean, how can I say today that I wouldn't find myself content to be that other me?

 

If I don't remember a lot about being the person I am today, then maybe I would be happy in that other condition.

 

Does that make sense?

 

GASP!! You mean... people's thoughts might CHANGE from one season of life to teh next?? or .. you mean that NOT every 82yo bedridden person thinks the same about their state of being?? i think it makes perfect sense.

 

I'm hearing alot of "concern" for those in the last stages of dementia, coma, unresponsiveness, etc... Perhaps this concern is coming from fear, guilt, impatience, sadness, not sure what... but the reality is that we can't know what is left of the spirit in another human, we can't know how we would feel in their shoes, and we can't presume to have it figured out for another human being.

 

That is why euthanasia is such a scary idea for me. ... I can't tell you how my assumptions about how I would feel at certain stages in my life have again and again been proved totally false. When I was 20yo, did I really KNOW what 40yo was like. Nope. And I can't know really how I will feel at 80yo. Maybe I'll wish I were dead. Maybe I'll savor every moment and pray for another day. We all know many stories of those in really "terrible" circumstances that are still grateful for life.

 

....

 

And then there are those that don't want to "see" the suffering. How can one be so positive that there is no spirit left in a loved one that is aware of their presence/visits? How can we know that our visits don't bring some level of comfort, joy, etc? We can't. Who are we really protecting??

 

Life is hard. Sometimes our motives are suspect. I am often so surprised and saddened by the depth of my own selfishness. Let's not just pretend that euthanasia is a "humane" choice. Sometimes (or maybe always), there is nothing humane about it.

 

:iagree:

 

i also disagree about "playing God." We can't play God because we AREN't God. period. You would have to call any intervention of one person helping another as "playing God" if you carry it to its logical conclusion. Since I know Phred isn't concerned about people playing God, we are back to discussing how people will be playing PEOPLE: what do individuals want? do individuals have the right to decide what they want?

 

I would/do honor a DNR order. I would encourage someone who doesn't want to take anymore pills to just STOP taking those pills [and we did, just this past week].

 

But I am very leery of giving society the right to decide when a human should die --on either end of the life spectrum.

I'm off to San Antonio --see y'all next week! i expect I'll end up on Grace's side of this, whatever she posts...but i'll pick those apart later...

[Harriet Vane]

Promise???? What promise?? You mean like marital vows, or perhaps those promises aren't as important. When that man chose to make another family with a new "wife" he showed his commitment to "promises."

 

I'm hearing alot of "concern" for those in the last stages of dementia, coma, unresponsiveness, etc... Perhaps this concern is coming from fear, guilt, impatience, sadness, not sure what... but the reality is that we can't know what is left of the spirit in another human, we can't know how we would feel in their shoes, and we can't presume to have it figured out for another human being.

 

That is why euthanasia is such a scary idea for me. Just reading over the comments here from people who seem so sure about how they would feel to be 82 and suffering? I can't tell you how my assumptions about how I would feel at certain stages in my life have again and again been proved totally false. When I was 20yo, did I really KNOW what 40yo was like. Nope. And I can't know really how I will feel at 80yo. Maybe I'll wish I were dead. Maybe I'll savor every moment and pray for another day. We all know many stories of those in really "terrible" circumstances that are still grateful for life.

 

And then to focus on the cost involved is only a luxury for the middle class and wealthy. Aren't we really concerned with others taking away OUR share of the pie? It is coming from a position of power and entitlement to think that only those that can afford proper care are worthy of it. I wonder if the poster who had family help and insurance for her illness would still feel that only those who could afford it should get the care they need if she wasn't as blessed. I doubt it.

 

And then there are those that don't want to "see" the suffering. How can one be so positive that there is no spirit left in a loved one that is aware of their presence/visits? How can we know that our visits don't bring some level of comfort, joy, etc? We can't. Who are we really protecting??

 

Life is hard. Sometimes our motives are suspect. I am often so surprised and saddened by the depth of my own selfishness. Let's not just pretend that euthanasia is a "humane" choice. Sometimes (or maybe always), there is nothing humane about it.

 

Kim

 

 

:iagree:

[Phred]

I used to work as a respiratory therapy way back when. I routinely saw patients kept alive through tremendous medical intervention, even though they had no real quality of life now. People who were in horrible pain, babies born with most of their brain out of their head, people who no longer had any consciousness, people who were only going to live a bit longer anyway, but now through medical technology, they could live a week or two longer in horrible pain.

 

Our technology is way ahead of us. We definitely save people because we CAN, not because we SHOULD. And in the end, every single one of us will die anyway.

 

I'm most puzzled by those who call ending such treatment "playing God". I would say that putting those at death's door onto extremely complex, painful, invasive life support is what's playing God, and yet no one seems to be bothered by that.

Michelle T

I agree. We seem to have no problem "playing God" when it involves extending a life... only when ending a life is "playing God" suddenly a problem.

[GraceinMD]

....we can't presume to have it figured out for another human being.

 

I agree with these two points. The first is that you can not know or even analyze someone else's quality of life. Certainly there are many studies that attempt this, but these are largely based on someone's functional ability, which leaves a lot to be desired.

 

 

....And then there are those that don't want to "see" the suffering....Who are we really protecting??

 

 

Your second statement is truly the crux of the matter. For those of us who are Christians (and I am not interested in debating who is more of a Christian than someone else as was tried earlier in this thread), it is clear throughout Scripture (e.g., I Peter, II Peter, many others) that suffering has a purpose - now, I would not presume to always know what that purpose may be - but I believe that there is a purpose. I also would not WANT someone to suffer or justify it by saying, "Well, it's for their good," but ... still I'm left with my belief that there is a purpose to suffering.

 

THIS is why these issues can not be legislated well, imo - political and society's views of suffering can not be reconciled with "religious" views. (I'm not stating this well - I think I need a cone of silence to be able to formulate these thoughts! - but hope you get the gist of what I'm trying to convey.)

 

I do not think, though, that end-of-life issues must be argued only from a Christian / "religious" point-of-view -- but that's for another post!

[HRAAB]

I think I see two different topics here. Euthanasia is when a person's life is intentionally taken by use of medication. Give them a shot, they go to sleep and don't wake up. Choosing to not use extraordinary measures is not euthanasia.

 

My mother suffered a major heart attack when she was 57. Because of medical intervention, machines, tubes she lived. And she continued to live another 18 years. Then she had another heart attack. The paramedics could not get her to respond, and we chose to let her go. We chose not to intervene. Same with my dad. After he recovered from open heart surgery (6 weeks in intensive care), he chose a living will. I remember him telling the attorney they could try CPR, but no machines. He passed away in the hospital; they tried CPR but could not resuscitate him.

 

My question is when does 'pulling the plug' become euthanasia? Unplugging the respirator? Is removing 'extraordinary' measures euthanasia? I guess it seems more like letting nature takes its course to me. I'm not very familiar with the particulars of the Terry Schiavo case because I was nursing my dad at the time, and that was the last thing I wanted to hear. Is the reason this went to court because the parents didn't want the plug pulled and fought the husband. My mil just told me about a girl I went to high school with who is in the last stages of cancer. She said that if nothing had changed by a certain date, they were going to pull the plug. Can they do this without a living will? She's not responsive.

 

Janet

[SFP]

I also would not WANT someone to suffer or justify it by saying, "Well, it's for their good," but ... still I'm left with my belief that there is a purpose to suffering.

 

 

 

What is the purpose of clinical depression? What good comes from it?

 

I'm related to/know too many sucides to sustain such a belief.

[TXMomof4]

I think I see two different topics here. Euthanasia is when a person's life is intentionally taken by use of medication. Give them a shot, they go to sleep and don't wake up. Choosing to not use extraordinary measures is not euthanasia.

 

My mother suffered a major heart attack when she was 57. Because of medical intervention, machines, tubes she lived. And she continued to live another 18 years. Then she had another heart attack. The paramedics could not get her to respond, and we chose to let her go. We chose not to intervene. Same with my dad. After he recovered from open heart surgery (6 weeks in intensive care), he chose a living will. I remember him telling the attorney they could try CPR, but no machines. He passed away in the hospital; they tried CPR but could not resuscitate him.

 

My question is when does 'pulling the plug' become euthanasia? Unplugging the respirator? Is removing 'extraordinary' measures euthanasia? I guess it seems more like letting nature takes its course to me. I'm not very familiar with the particulars of the Terry Schiavo case because I was nursing my dad at the time, and that was the last thing I wanted to hear. Is the reason this went to court because the parents didn't want the plug pulled and fought the husband. My mil just told me about a girl I went to high school with who is in the last stages of cancer. She said that if nothing had changed by a certain date, they were going to pull the plug. Can they do this without a living will? She's not responsive.

 

Janet

 

 

You're exactly right. THere are entirely too many branches to this tree to make any one generalization. Even with my grandparents, THEY will tell you they are unhappy with their life and their standard of living. However, I have a friend at church who had a heart transplant in his upper 60s and treasures each and every day. I know a woman who had cancer at the age of 80 and was determined to try everything to get through it, but another woman in her 50s who was content to completely let nature take its own course when she was diagnosed with cancer. There is no one standard that can apply to everyone.

 

As for the elderly who truly have no voice anymore....alzheimers, dementia, etc. I cannot fathom a world where we take their lives. I hate to know that they are sitting in nursing homes with no one to visit them. BUt I'd hate to know even more that they could be put down like animals, as if their lives don't matter. I do believe we have an obligation to care for those who can't care for themselves. Children and the elderly. Isn't it in James that he says, Pure religion is this, to care for the orphans and widows. (paraphrased)

[GraceinMD]

now, I would not presume to always know what that purpose may be

 

(I'm not stating this well - I think I need a cone of silence to be able to formulate these thoughts!

 

What is the purpose of clinical depression? What good comes from it?

 

I'm related to/know too many sucides to sustain such a belief.

 

Well, yes, I, too, have many suicides in my family and that has caused me, personally, much pain. As I said above, I do not KNOW the purpose of that suffering (mine or theirs, for that matter), but I was just trying to say that my belief in God means that I believe God is True and Just and Merciful - and that THAT means that when He says that suffering has purpose, I believe it. I'm NOT minimizing the suffering at all, because I've been there and I see it every single day at work. I guess I'm just acknowledging that I can't tell you the reasons, but I believe they exist.

 

(Again, I need that cone of silence - there's too much noise here right now to think clearly ... maybe "purpose" isn't the right word. Will try to think more when it's quiet!)

[SFP]

Thank you!

[Jugglin'5]

I think I see two different topics here. Euthanasia is when a person's life is intentionally taken by use of medication. Give them a shot, they go to sleep and don't wake up. Choosing to not use extraordinary measures is not euthanasia.

 

My mother suffered a major heart attack when she was 57. Because of medical intervention, machines, tubes she lived. And she continued to live another 18 years. Then she had another heart attack. The paramedics could not get her to respond, and we chose to let her go. We chose not to intervene. Same with my dad. After he recovered from open heart surgery (6 weeks in intensive care), he chose a living will. I remember him telling the attorney they could try CPR, but no machines. He passed away in the hospital; they tried CPR but could not resuscitate him.

 

:iagree:

 

My question is when does 'pulling the plug' become euthanasia? Unplugging the respirator? Is removing 'extraordinary' measures euthanasia? I guess it seems more like letting nature takes its course to me. I'm not very familiar with the particulars of the Terry Schiavo case because I was nursing my dad at the time, and that was the last thing I wanted to hear. Is the reason this went to court because the parents didn't want the plug pulled and fought the husband. My mil just told me about a girl I went to high school with who is in the last stages of cancer. She said that if nothing had changed by a certain date, they were going to pull the plug. Can they do this without a living will? She's not responsive.

 

Janet

 

The trouble with the Terry Schiavo case is that she was not on any kind of machine, just a feeding tube for nutrition and hydration. It took her, what, 13 days to die or starvation and dehydration? This is very different from what happens when a person with a terminal illness naturally refuses food and water, which is part of the dying process. Terry Schiavo was not dying, they had to starve her to kill her.

 

I posted this earlier about several cases of people who were completely aware and felt pain, and couldn't tell anyone until they came out of their diagnosed vegetative or brain dead state!

 

http://www.rense.com/general44/vege.htm

 

Schiavo's family and doctors said that she was responsive over and against the the husband who had a girlfriend and kids with the girlfriend.

[Doran]

As for the elderly who truly have no voice anymore....alzheimers, dementia, etc. I cannot fathom a world where we take their lives. I hate to know that they are sitting in nursing homes with no one to visit them. BUt I'd hate to know even more that they could be put down like animals, as if their lives don't matter. ...

 

 

To whom do their lives matter? If they sit in nursing homes, where family can be absolved of responsibility, and caregivers don't necessarily really care, but simply do the duties required of them by the nature of their work, then what has been gained?

 

Again, I'm not saying I hold to this line of thinking, but I do wrestle with these concepts.

[Jugglin'5]

Doran said:

 

To whom do their lives matter?

 

Perhaps their lives still matter to themselves, even if we can't see it. Furthermore, I believe that they matter to God.

 

I also realize that you said that the question is not necessarily representative of your own opinion. So I 'm not arguing with you, just trying to offer an answer to that question.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Is there a reason why we are encripting this?????

 

No, we're not encrypting anything.

[Sara R]

And then to focus on the cost involved is only a luxury for the middle class and wealthy. Aren't we really concerned with others taking away OUR share of the pie? It is coming from a position of power and entitlement to think that only those that can afford proper care are worthy of it. I wonder if the poster who had family help and insurance for her illness would still feel that only those who could afford it should get the care they need if she wasn't as blessed. I doubt it.

 

Perhaps we are talking about different things. I'm talking about extraordinarily expensive life-preserving medical procedures for those beyond, let's say, age 80. I'm not talking about real euthanasia because it's expensive for people to be alive (shudder).

 

I don't understand how focusing on the cost is a "luxury" of the middle class and wealthy. If there were no entitlement programs, then the poor would have to focus on the cost as well. The entitlement programs, especially Medicare, are bankrupting our country. See these two videos by David Walker, nonpartisan former head of the GAO office, talking about the deep doo-doo our country is in because we aren't letting little things like deficits get in the way of these entitlements.

 

And what do I think about others who don't have money getting cancer treatment? I don't know. Treatment is complicated and expensive, and you can get the complicated, painful, and expensive treatments and die anyway. I had a 50/50 chance of being in that boat. I'm glad things worked out the way they have (so far...)--and my kids are even more glad than I am-- But the hard truth is that the money has to come from somewhere, and the US govt is running out of it. I'm glad I had family and insurance to help me out. There are charities that help those under 65 afford cancer treatment.

 

Still as a matter of policy, I think there's a difference between treating someone in their 30s and someone in their 80s. I know it sounds cold and heartless to say so, but the medical profession hasn't figured out a way to make these earthly bodies immortal, and the same expensive treatment has the possibility of yielding 50+ years of life for the 30-year-old but much less for the elderly person. If I live to the point where I can see my grandchildren come into the world (20+ years after my diagnosis, in my early 50s), that will be plenty miraculous enough for me. If it comes back after that time, I would be much less inclined to go through chemo, etc. again.

[Phred]

The trouble with the Terry Schiavo case is that she was not on any kind of machine' date=' just a feeding tube for nutrition and hydration. It took her, what, 13 days to die or starvation and dehydration? This is[i'] very different [/i]from what happens when a person with a terminal illness naturally refuses food and water, which is part of the dying process. Terry Schiavo was not dying, they had to starve her to kill her.

 

I posted this earlier about several cases of people who were completely aware and felt pain, and couldn't tell anyone until they came out of their diagnosed vegetative or brain dead state!

 

http://www.rense.com/general44/vege.htm

 

Schiavo's family and doctors said that she was responsive over and against the the husband who had a girlfriend and kids with the girlfriend.

Yes, but she wasn't responsive... she had no brain. The autopsy confirmed this. People don't come out of such a state.

[HRAAB]

The trouble with the Terry Schiavo case is that she was not on any kind of machine' date=' just a feeding tube for nutrition and hydration. It took her, what, 13 days to die or starvation and dehydration? This is[i'] very different [/i]from what happens when a person with a terminal illness naturally refuses food and water, which is part of the dying process. Terry Schiavo was not dying, they had to starve her to kill her.

 

I posted this earlier about several cases of people who were completely aware and felt pain, and couldn't tell anyone until they came out of their diagnosed vegetative or brain dead state!

 

http://www.rense.com/general44/vege.htm

 

Schiavo's family and doctors said that she was responsive over and against the the husband who had a girlfriend and kids with the girlfriend.

 

I embarrassed that I'm so ignorant of what Terry Schiavo went through. I didn't realize the particulars and was under the assumption that she wasn't responsive. I take it she couldn't eat on her own. I don't think I could ever withhold food or water from any human or animal for that matter. Those are basic needs for life. Nutrition, hydration. I would not want to be responsible for making those decisions about another human life.

 

When my dad was in a nursing facility I remember walking past the locked door behind which lived the alzheimer patients and hearing the moaning and sometimes screaming. No, I wouldn't choose to continue on like that. Yet I remember my grandmother who suffered from dementia. She didn't know us, didn't know where she physically was at the time, but in her mind she was living back on the farm when the kids were little. I remember her telling my dad to get out and milk the cows. Although it was very hard on us, in her mind she was happy. I realize that's very different from those suffering in the late stages of alzheimers.

 

So many layers to this issue. I'm not an overly religious person - I've been going through my own personal struggles with faith - but I think this is where I draw the line and leave it in the hands of God although some might find that a cop-out - especially if one doesn't believe in a Divine Being. Watching my dad waste away and slowly lose his grip on life was so very hard, and when he finally passed there was a sense of relief in me. Yet I would have continued to nurse him for another 6 mos. or more - gladly. I don't know if there was any value in his suffering in the eternal realm of things. I just again realized there is so much about life I don't know and will never know. This is too big for me.

 

Janet

[Spy Car]

The memory of my grandmother's final years still fills me with an overwhelming flood of emotions, despite it being a hard-to-comprehend seventeen years since she passed.

 

My grandmother was a bright and lovely woman, who in her early 90's fell into an ever-worsening state of dementia. She'd live with my father for years, and as her condition worsened he took on the role of full time care-giver.

 

I didn't fully appreciate what that entailed until I received a middle-of-the-night phone call from my father, and he asked if I might relieve him as he had not slept in days and was near exhaustive collapse.

 

By this point my grandmother was in such a state of agitation that she did not sleep. She would want to get up, go to another room, forget why, ask to go back to bed, want to go to the bathroom, not want to to go to the bathroom, want to go back to bed, immediately want to get up. And so on. All night...every night.

 

When asked by others (who really didn't understand just how difficult things really were) if this wasn't unduly burdensome on my father, he would say, "It's my joy taking care of my mother".

 

But it was hard on him. And on the all-too-infrequent nights that I took over it was hard on me. But we both really loved my grandmother and could not imagine she'd receive the same compassionate care in any facility that she would at home. And even if she could, we were family.

 

It did get to the point that my grandmother would refer to my father--the man who fed her, and cleaned her, and was there for her at every moment --as "THAT MAN". It was very sad.

 

One especially bad night, I was up with my grandmother when she had a rare moment of lucidity . She was a woman of quiet but resolute faith and she let me know that she wanted to let go, that she was at peace with her life and she was ready for it to be at an end.

 

No court in the world woulds have accepted this as "legal consent" to anything. But to me, i was quite clear that I understood her wishes. And i kept it to myself.

 

Never would anyone in my family have considered euthanasia as an option (myself included). It just doesn't comport with our family values... certainly not in this situation.

 

But not long after my grandmother fell quite ill and was hospitalized. After day's and day's on life support her doctor's were unanimous in their opinion that she would never recover and that she could be kept alive only with artificial means.

 

My father's first response was "keep her alive no matter what it takes". But i found time to speak with my dad, and I told him what my grandmother had told me. As we talked the family came to the conclusion that "extraordinary measures" were not a kindness and that the compassionate and humane course was to let her go...no matter how badly we wanted her her with us.

 

One of the things I'll always feel grateful for is that I could be with her and hold her hand over the many hours before she passed.

 

I still miss her. And honor my father's self-sacrifice and loving devotion. It's rare and humbling to see such an example.

 

Forgive me if I've been too personal.

 

Bill

[Jenny in Atl]

BUt I'd hate to know even more that they could be put down like animals, as if their lives don't matter. (paraphrased)

 

I may be way off here... but I have an issue about this statement. As one who has put down an animal, just recently. I did not do so because she no longer had worth. If anything, it was out of a deep and true love, to end her pain from bone cancer. We waited tell she told us it was time. My husband cried for days. Animals have worth!

 

We had early made the choice not to "put down" one of our cats, we instead "midwifed" her through to her death. It was one of the most gut retching experiences. Waiting till each organ to died, listening for the death rattle, saying goodbye. Dh and I decided not to do this again, to watch another family pet (really family member) go through that much suffering again.

 

Again this experience came rushing in on us as my husband (in fetal position) lie on the floor of his mother's hospital room as she passed from lung cancer just a couple years later. He lie there helpless as she begged God to take her. She finally feel into a coma, and there he sat listening to her die as each organ finally gave out.

 

This issue is so grey, it has it's own rainbow! I'm not for offing the elderly who are warehoused in nursing homes, but I do wonder how many are there because we try to keep alive so many who long ago were ready to leave.

 

Just no easy answers.

[Phred]

I embarrassed that I'm so ignorant of what Terry Schiavo went through. I didn't realize the particulars and was under the assumption that she wasn't responsive. I take it she couldn't eat on her own. I don't think I could ever withhold food or water from any human or animal for that matter. Those are basic needs for life. Nutrition, hydration. I would not want to be responsible for making those decisions about another human life.

Well... you aren't ignorant. Terri's parents desperately wanted her the be responsive and saw in her random sounds and movements what they wanted to see. Her parents were supplied with "doctors" by the prolife movement that would back up those findings or they wouldn't be there. But she couldn't have been responsive. The type of injury she suffered basically caused an injury to her brain that dissolved it. Her basic functions were intact, her body could breathe on its own, her eyes opened and followed light... but she was never awake. There was no cerebellum or cerebrum to contain a thought, to provide consciousness. She could not lift a spoon, she could not eat. She was fed through a feeding tube directly into her stomach.

 

Her husband said that when he and his wife talked, they agreed that neither of them would ever, ever want to be alive this way. At first he fought to keep her alive by any means, to try and rehabilitate her... but when it became apparent that she was never coming back. (it was only then he began to get on with his life, going on a date with a woman that Terri's parents set him up with) It was then that he sought to have the feeding tube removed, to fulfill her wishes. And then the character assassination started. First the rumors of abuse causing the accident. Then the nonsense about his spending the settlement on himself. Some of those rumors appeared in this thread as gospel. Still, the husband refused to marry the woman he fell in love with even though he'd had two children with her until Terri was gone.

 

She wasn't there anymore... there was no one to save. Terri Schaivo was a husk and the prolife folks were lying to us in order to further their agenda. The autopsy bears out the husband. No signs of abuse, no brain to be responsive. He carried out the wishes of his wife. But, still chained to a society that requires that the "will of God" be fulfilled... she had to be starved to death by removing the feeding tube and watching her dehydrate and slowly slip away. How exactly is this fulfilling the "will of God"?

 

When my dad was in a nursing facility I remember walking past the locked door behind which lived the alzheimer patients and hearing the moaning and sometimes screaming. No, I wouldn't choose to continue on like that. Yet I remember my grandmother who suffered from dementia. She didn't know us, didn't know where she physically was at the time, but in her mind she was living back on the farm when the kids were little. I remember her telling my dad to get out and milk the cows. Although it was very hard on us, in her mind she was happy. I realize that's very different from those suffering in the late stages of alzheimers.

Was she happy? I wonder about this... if being in a delusion is really being happy. Has anyone here been in a delusional state due to a drug interaction or something and can you tell us what it was like?

 

So many layers to this issue. I'm not an overly religious person - I've been going through my own personal struggles with faith - but I think this is where I draw the line and leave it in the hands of God although some might find that a cop-out - especially if one doesn't believe in a Divine Being. Watching my dad waste away and slowly lose his grip on life was so very hard, and when he finally passed there was a sense of relief in me. Yet I would have continued to nurse him for another 6 mos. or more - gladly. I don't know if there was any value in his suffering in the eternal realm of things. I just again realized there is so much about life I don't know and will never know. This is too big for me.

 

Janet

I think that's exactly the reason I'd like to think about it some more. I'm not at all comfortable tossing it up to a being I don't believe in. Leaving it up to nature? But we don't do that... we take every opportunity to remove it from nature. So I can't understand why we won't allow things like assisted suicide and such... or in the case of Terri Schiavo, a simple injection of phenobarbitol to help her on her way. Of course, I can see the opportunity for abuse... and for relief.

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

I think I see two different topics here. Euthanasia is when a person's life is intentionally taken by use of medication. Give them a shot, they go to sleep and don't wake up. Choosing to not use extraordinary measures is not euthanasia.

 

 

Janet

 

This is my thinking too. I was thinking more about extraordinary measures when I posted about my parents wishes. I think living wills should be greatly encouraged, and families should talk about this issue long before it becomes necessary.

 

I don't believe in taking a person's life intentionally by medication, and I wonder about the truth of those stories we hear about nurses giving just a little more pain medication to someone who is obviously near the end.

[Jugglin'5]

Phred, the problem is that you and I give credibility to different sources, so I don't see a way around that.

 

But, let's say that she really had no awareness, and that this was proved by the autopsy (also debatable depending on which sources you trust). If we agreed that this could be proved by autopsy, the patient would have to be dead first to find out.:glare: Meanwhile, there are many, many doctors who say that diagnoses of brain death and PVS are very flawed. People come out of them and say that they were aware! And there is really no foolproof way to know this for sure. I prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt and not starve them to death. Food and water are not extreme measures.

 

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20021002-000033.html

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

What is the purpose of clinical depression? What good comes from it?

 

I'm related to/know too many sucides to sustain such a belief.

 

I can't answer for anyone else, but I can say what good came of it for me.

 

I went through a clinical depression. For me it was a tremendous learning experience. I learned how to let go of my desire to control the world around me. I learned that I was a human being in a world of human beings like me, and not super woman. In acknowledging my weaknesses, I found a kind of strength that I did not know existed, the strength to be less than perfect.

 

I had the good fortune to be surrounded by people who loved me more than I loved myself, and a faith that led me to seek alternatives to giving up on life.

[Susan Wise Bauer]

I'm going to leave the thread up as long as it stays on topic.

 

Right now it's veering off topic.

 

SWB

[Jugglin'5]

I think I see two different topics here. Euthanasia is when a person's life is intentionally taken by use of medication. Give them a shot, they go to sleep and don't wake up. Choosing to not use extraordinary measures is not euthanasia.

 

 

Janet

 

I totally agree with this.

 

Virginia Dawn Wrote:

This is my thinking too. I was thinking more about extraordinary measures when I posted about my parents wishes. I think living wills should be greatly encouraged, and families should talk about this issue long before it becomes necessary.

 

I don't believe in taking a person's life intentionally by medication, and I wonder about the truth of those stories we hear about nurses giving just a little more pain medication to someone who is obviously near the end.

 

 

When my Grandmother was dying in hospice, she voluntarily stopped eating and drinking. She was generally unconscious, but occasionally came too and requested more hymn singing. Hospice workers were always very careful to tell us to be careful what we said around her. She obviously had awareness many times when we thought she was gone. The one thing that bothered me about the whole thing was that in the last few hours, they (my dad and his siblings) didn't give her any more morphine because they didn't think she could feel anything. I kept thinking, "What if she's thirsty? What if she's in pain and can't tell us?" I believe in excellent palliative care, but not euthanasia. I am not a heroic measures at all costs person.

[GraceinMD]

I've probably (now that I've figured out how to multi-quote! Hooray!) created a thicket from which I will not be able to extricate myself, but here goes!

 

We can all imagine circumstances in which it would be appropriate

 

Nope; blanket statement. I can not imagine it being appropriate. Now, I CAN imagine WANTING someone to die (um, that doesn't quite sound right :) ). I mean I can understand wanting them to not have to go through whatever it is that they're going through - but "appropriate" - nope.

 

had no real quality of life now. We definitely save people because we CAN, not because we SHOULD. And in the end, every single one of us will die anyway.

Well, as I posted way below, how can you (any of us) say what someone else's quality of life is? How can you say what you yourself would be happy with? It's the "what would have been wanted," and you simply can not know! I have had patients who would have killed themselves if they thought they were going to be vent-dependent, but when they WERE vent-dependent, well - they wanted to live and see their families, etc., etc. I will strongly maintain that none of us can KNOW the future - and thank goodness for that! I certainly have my preferences, just as much as the next guy, but I can't KNOW that I wdn't want to live.

 

I agree. We seem to have no problem "playing God" when it involves extending a life... only when ending a life is "playing God" suddenly a problem.

Do you or your family take antibiotics when needed? Would you, or have you had surgery? Where's the line of what's "playing God" and what isn't

?

Choosing to not use extraordinary measures is not euthanasia.

:iagree:

 

To whom do their lives matter? If they sit in nursing homes, where family can be absolved of responsibility, and caregivers don't necessarily really care, but simply do the duties required of them by the nature of their work, then what has been gained?

 

This is a great question - I don't have the answer, but I think it's the thing to keep asking. But do we always know "what has been gained" for anything we do?

 

My father's first response was "keep her alive no matter what it takes".

This is fairly common (at least initially). There was an elegant article in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society some years ago that talked about end-of-life issues - and instead of talking about ventilators and surgery and pacemakers, etc., it talked about three categories: length of life, functional ability, and pain (or lack thereof). If you get people to rank these items, you can have a much better idea of what they would want at the end of their life. Indeed, some folks DO say they want to live as long as possible, even if it's painful, or if they can't function as well. Some don't want to live if "xyz," and some don't want to live with any pain at all. It sounds like you were able to talk through this with your family, and come to a reasonable decision and probably one that your g'mother would have chosen were she able to choose. You were left without that dissonance about conflicting choices, and it seems you have wonderful memories - to which I would say, "Well done!" Many don't handle it so well at all.

 

The trouble with the Terry Schiavo case

is that NONE of us really knows what went on. Really. (Well' date=' unless you tell me that you were involved directly in the case.)

Yes, but she wasn't responsive... she had no brain. The autopsy confirmed this. People don't come out of such a state.

NONE of us really knows what went on. Really. (Well, unless you tell me that you were involved directly in the case.)

the particulars and was under the assumption that she wasn't responsive.

(repeat above)

Her basic functions were intact, her body could breathe on its own, her eyes opened and followed light... but she was never awake.

 

Leaving it up to nature? But we don't do that... we take every opportunity to remove it from nature. So I can't understand why we won't allow things like assisted suicide and such...

 

So, we could kill you or anyone who's asleep with impunity? You're drawing a line - which is exactly what "has" to be done - but where is that line?

 

We don't allow assisted suicide just BECAUSE drawing that line is so difficult - or rather is so easy. It's a slippery slope, you know. If you say that a person in a persistent vegetative state should be euthanized (or could be euthanized), what's to stop ME from saying that a very demented person should/could be euthanized? and the mayor in the next town from saying my brother who has CP and a mental age of about 2 yrs old should be euthanized? and the next guy from wanting to euthanize the unemployed, because they're not contributing to society? Where (seriously) would it stop? If you make a determination about what's life, then there will be whittling and whittling, and pretty soon (maybe not in your lifetime if you're lucky:D) YOU might be considered the drain on society's resources (you started this all by mentioning resources, so that's why I'm going there).

 

 

living wills should be greatly encouraged, and families should talk about this issue long before it becomes necessary.

 

I wonder about the truth of those stories we hear about nurses giving just a little more pain medication to someone who is obviously near the end.

I couldn't agree more - but living wills DO NOT answer all the questions by any stretch of the imagination. For example, people say they want resuscitation "but I don't want to be on a machine to breathe for me." Well, ya know, the very first thing that will happen is ... a tube in your throat and being hooked up to a machine. (You know, the ABCs of resuscitation - airway, breathing, circulation - all the chest compressions and meds in the world aren't going to help if there's no breathing - so it's not a menu to choose from in most cases.)

 

And finally, to bring these unrelated thoughts to a close: yes, "just a little more pain medication" happens not that infrequently - called a "slow code." The first time I saw it, I was an intern, and I could NOT figure out, for some minutes, why the senior resident was injecting the meds into the mattress.

 

Well, if you read this far, kudos or sympathy! I don't even want to re-read it to proofread, so I'm hoping I wasn't typing too fast....

[TXMomof4]

To whom do their lives matter? If they sit in nursing homes, where family can be absolved of responsibility, and caregivers don't necessarily really care, but simply do the duties required of them by the nature of their work, then what has been gained?

 

Again, I'm not saying I hold to this line of thinking, but I do wrestle with these concepts.

 

Their lives matter to God. (ducking as I sense Phred throw something at the computer screen) If that isn't true, if there isn't any reason to care for them once they become a burden, then this is a sad, sad place where our value is determined solely by anothers view of us.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Their lives matter to God. (ducking as I sense Phred throw something at the computer screen) If that isn't true, if there isn't any reason to care for them once they become a burden, then this is a sad, sad place where our value is determined solely by anothers view of us.

 

So do their deaths, if you believe the verse that says, "Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints." Is artificially prolonging life dishonoring God, if you're a believer?

[TXMomof4]

I may be way off here... but I have an issue about this statement. As one who has put down an animal, just recently. I did not do so because she no longer had worth. If anything, it was out of a deep and true love, to end her pain from bone cancer. We waited tell she told us it was time. My husband cried for days. Animals have worth!

 

We had early made the choice not to "put down" one of our cats, we instead "midwifed" her through to her death. It was one of the most gut retching experiences. Waiting till each organ to died, listening for the death rattle, saying goodbye. Dh and I decided not to do this again, to watch another family pet (really family member) go through that much suffering again.

 

Again this experience came rushing in on us as my husband (in fetal position) lie on the floor of his mother's hospital room as she passed from lung cancer just a couple years later. He lie there helpless as she begged God to take her. She finally feel into a coma, and there he sat listening to her die as each organ finally gave out.

 

This issue is so grey, it has it's own rainbow! I'm not for offing the elderly who are warehoused in nursing homes, but I do wonder how many are there because we try to keep alive so many who long ago were ready to leave.

 

Just no easy answers.

 

C'mon Jenny. The comparison was between animals in the pound who are put down every day because they don't have someone to care for them, and the elderly sitting in nursing homes who don't have anyone to care for them.

I have had 2 dogs in 32 years (and I've always had a dog). I love my animals. But to say they have the same value in my life as my grandparents? That's kind of a stretch for me.